You're missing something. Some sensors do actually change at a certain iso. So my Sony A7iii switches to a different mode when you hit 640. It amplifies the sensors signal via analog gain which produces less noise. So the camera is isoless...as long as you're in the same "range". 500 vs 100 would be the same. 3200 vs 640 would be the same. But 3200 vs 100 would not be the same.
www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d850-camera-review.html This article mentions a dual iso. I'm just saying it's worth mentioning that it can be a variable. Then people can decide what they want to do with that info! Haha
All cameras are different but from the linked graph it appears the D850 has two levels of ISO invariance, one between 100-320 and one from 400 upwards (photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm - and chose D850 on the right). Some cameras exhibit ISO invariant behaviour from 100 upwards, some like tha A7iii and apparently D850 have two levels of ISO invariant behaviour. Some like the 6D only exhibit ISO invariant behaviour after ISO3200. Probably the best write up about ISO invariance can be found on lonelyspeck or photographylife. www.lonelyspeck.com/how-to-find-the-best-iso-for-astrophotography-dynamic-range-and-noise/
@@jeffluo9591 I'd like to know more about that, and I seem to be reading conflicting numbers here in the comments, while a quick search on the internet only yields articles with vague claims. You claim the thresshold is at 640, Alyn Wallace claims the threshold is at 400. Have any sources so I may know where the threshold actually is? (interested on the D750 and D850 values)
Tony gets criticized a lot for some of his opinions, but I’ve found that he’s usually able to back up his claims in pretty reliable ways. As a digital media teacher whose classroom is right next door to a traditional film classroom, I can confirm that iso from film to digital is a mess of confusion.
Read my comment above, unless you have an "ISO-invariat" sensor Tony is very wrong. If you expect to see what he states, to say with the just announced Canon RP you would be very disappointed.
@@armandot9137 even with an ISO invariant sensor there is more bit depth in the highlights of a raw file than the shadows, if you're pulling information out of the shadows you'll lose some amount of detail compared to if you stored them in the highlights of the file by using a higher ISO. on the other hand using a higher ISO costs you dynamic range.
@@armandot9137 Regardless of the method used to increase and decrease the sensor sensitivity, ISO standards should yield the same results in exposure (within a margin of course).
@@tobiasyoder it is indeed but we're far more scientific in our approach (and have a million more reasons to understand ISO properly). But we're kinda fed up of people saying false statements like "higher ISO = more noise". Nice to see people are waking up to ISO invariance though, it's highly useful knowledge
Lol hoping astrophotography sounds as cool as astrophysics. No different from food photography. Anyway, from what I've gathered, ISO is just gain applied after the exposure.. however the gain applied by the camera's amplifiers in the signal chain is different from the gain you can get from software. Maybe that's why the exposures in this video looked different.
@@Triple070007 yep it's gain but the difference is that some cameras induce noise into the image after the amplification gain in camera. This is why there's a difference with boosting in post with some cameras. Cameras that don't add much noise after the amplification in camera are those that behave iso invariant so you can boost in post and get a similar result
Some modes of applying exposure gain are better than others. People super into photography tech are still adorably unaware of how anything about cameras work. News at 11.
@@AlynWallace same boat here, seen too many time people doing astro saying "I kept ISO low to keep the noise low" while they actually destroyed the image. Ironically enough an article was recently published on Fstoppers explaining ISO the wrong way :)
Some of the noise comes from the rounding of the number. In a 14 bit raw file, the intensity of a pixel changes from 0 to 16384, so a correctly exposed picture's rounding error is almost negligible. However, when you underexpose by 5 stops, you effectively have 8-9 bit raw file bit intensity varying from 0 to 200-500, where shadows of this image have a small number of intensity. Then the rounding error becomes significant.
This video was really quite well done. I really liked how you were so humble and not trying to find fault with Tony or anyone else. You're a class act!
Few years ago I’ve read a research paper about photo sensors. The skinny of it is: sensors do have constant dynamic range but photo cameras also have hardware noise reduction that cleans up RAW data before saving it. Some dynamic range is cut on the bright side in the process, that’s why you can’t recover overexposed high ISOs. Extended ISO range is when hardware NR is disabled or inactive so you basically get same results as Camera RAW exposure slider. And there is Red cinema cameras that function exactly as Tony described - if sensor itself wasn’t clipped and there is still signal in shadows then you can totally recover anything. However Red has new Gemini camera with dual ISO and it’s low light ISO setting does have hardware NR, so you get lesser dynamic range, but also much cleaner image with higher overall exposure
At a basic level of understanding, the ISO is just brightening the image; But for a better result, its better to do this before committing the data to file than after. A digital file format has limitations at extreme dark or light dynamic ranges, because the information is quantized in to a small part of the dynamic range. The result is that the file cant hold as much information from a dark image than a correctly metered image. This I think is the main reason for the differences.
You are most right about what this video couldn't figure out. Nature has almost unlimited colors but digitization must limit the color palette one way or another. It's actually a form of compression artifacting but in a small scale since those files are technically(by name) uncompressed.
I think you guys made the same point but maybe I'm confused a little. In your first test, if the D750 and D850 shows the photo is overexposed @ ISO 400, doesn't it mean that you can get the same exposure as the D1H @ a lower ISO?? Hence the selling point!
Tony was arguing that you would take a photo with an old camera at iso 3200 and a new camera at iso 3200 and notice there is less noise in the new cameras image at the “same” iso. While in reality it might actually be shooting a darker image at iso 1600 but it changed the number to 3200
Something is missing here, the D1h is using CCD sensor while others are CMOS sensor. So I reckon that the ISO calculation maybe different because of this.
First of all.. ISO in sensor is obtained by changing the Vcc voltage of the sensor. Although it's not canged for every ISO setting rather is decided in bands, for eg. 100-400 have the same input voltage of the sensor and the rest is processed by the processor. Second, the Exposure settings in LR or PS are complex algorithms simulating exposure equivalence but is not eqivalent. Third, in the internal processing of an image some other things are applied, like dark current clipping, witch in Nikon cameras is pretty hard, and this is the reason untill d850 and partially d800a the Nikon cameras where not the one used for astrophotography. Dark current clipping is omitting the darkes informations in the image, to be breaf. Fourth, the RAW file is nothing like the the true image comming from the sensor, it is heavily processed, not only in sharpness or contrast... The real image from the sensor is mostly magenta in tone and you would never be able to match it to the scene by hand in PS.
No. The sensor's sensitivity has *nothing* to do with its digital supply. Analog gain is a thing, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Multiple gain architecture is only used on some sensors, others only have one analog gain set in silicon. The real image from a sensor, when debayered, will look very green, not magenta.
@@Spirit532 I don't understand what you say about the 'real' image which would look green. The bayer matrix of the sensors has twice as much green points than red and blue, so what would be the real image? What I understood that the human eye is extremely good at distinguishing between slightest differences of greens but not as good on other colours, thus sensors use more green elements than other colours. And of course since three colours channels are recorded and you want to keep the rectangular and repeating matrix one colour has to have more sensor elements than the two others.
5:07 "OK, I'm going to do this live, on camera 5:11 :)
5 ปีที่แล้ว +1
This will practically change how I go about my shoots. I used to be scared of underexposing, now I guess there's one less thing to worry about in the field. Of course we as photographers should do our own further testing with our own camera models. I'm gonna do that right away after this
Hi Fstoppers .. I don't think you found evidence for "the opposite to be true" I think what you discovered in your old vs new Nikon teest is actually the fundamental problem Tony Northrop refers to. The sensor technology between the old and the newer cameras improved so much that the older camera needs to boost the signal (gain) significanly more than the newer ones. Increased gain generally leads to more noise. So the improved sensor technology allows you to shoot the same picture at a lower gain and therefore noise. Regarding ISO number inflation, there might be some truth to Tony's observation, until there is a clear standard/reference it can and will be used to make the product look better. Bigger Numbers make it look better for sales... same as GHz on devices, HP on cars etc. ... Regarding your second test Yes there can be some "processing" going one before the image is stored ... you need to digitise the analog signal Every pixel in the end has a limited capacity of storing different information. Lets assume there are only 1024 brightness levels Correctly exposed you will used camera gain and all 1024 Levels, but when underexposing 5 stops you cram all the information in just 32 levels Because the gain gets applied after the values are digitised it is possible that this causes artefacts Analog | 5 Stop Gain || Digital Value | 5 Stop Gain 7.968 | 255 || 7 | 224 8 | 256 || 8 | 256 8.0312 | 257 || 8 | 256 While the Analog values are actually very close to each other the post digitised values can be the same or very far apart In an ideal world where the RAW file is able to store infinitely/sufficiently precise, there is no difference between the two For now, using ETTR you can use the information capacity within a RAW file as much as possible. Also high information RAW formats today allow you to be off by 2-3 stops, without loosing too much informatinon .. and as always ... your mileage may vary ...
I love it when my favourite channels reply to each other and even challenge claims of others (in friendly manner). No matter who is right in the end, it puts out quite a lot of interesting information out and a few forth and back discussions generate more tests and claritications.
What Tony says if I understand it correctly is that if that the image is pushed 5 stops in the camera the images would look exactly the same?? All software process the images differently. Lightroom would not do it in the exact same way as the software in the camera.
Magnus Eriksson I want to try this but Nikon’s in camera NEF editor only pushes an image 2 stops. Maybe their proprietary NEF software ( is it still capture nx?) would do the same thing? -P
Tony just exposes his ignorance when he claims that all cameras exhibit "ISO invariance". ADC (analogue to digital conversion) is handled differently by different sensors. Some use analogue gain in which case Tony's claims fall flat. Then there are the modern dual gain sensors where ISO invariance holds but only in two separate ISO ranges. This stuff is really not complicated.
Wonderful video on the theory. This is how photography forums should be done. Being civil and respectful about the matter even if you don't agree on every single point. Love this channel!!
For the iso invariant test, your software matters. Capture One will give you a better result. Also, you get more highlight details in return, when you do that kind of boost, that's how you can get the "Film look".
@@ARMAJOV Indeed, but Capture one does some things automatically if you don't disable it. You can get (nearly) the same in Photoshop, it is just not the same set of defaults. In the tests in this video I wonder if Nikon does some high-ISO noise reduction like Sony does. If this is not deactivated, of cause there is more noise in the low-ISO picture. Tony did not mention those details. (According to some camera tutorials I think he must be aware of this in general. Maybe he left it out intentionally.) But the claims are more or less correct. The picture is the same within the sensor, the rest is signal processing. (Just ignoring possible dark frames or combinations of more than one picture in camera.) Reducing this topic to the exposure setting only is a bit too primitive thought. Lee is really no technician. @Lee, if there is a setting like Sonys high-ISO noise reduction, please disable it and re-shoot your example.
@@ulrichsiebald144 that was kinda my thiughts also. However the iso 100 pic has a ton of noise. Just different noise. If noise reduction was on its pretty crappy.
Really well done! This strikes me as a good example of how the scientific method should work. Tony posited some hypotheses, you guys test and find your results, then the data are what they are. I really appreciate that over stupid, drama-based flame wars.
It's a lot like recording audio; Good Level + no post gain = better quality and less distortion. Low Level + post gain = worse quality, background noise, artifacts.
I agree. I do sound recording/mixing. Getting a good level into your mics trumps all just like getting good light levels in photography. It means you can drive your preamps lower (equivalent to using low ISO). Analog gain circuitry like mic preamps adds noise especially if pushed too far. In that case i opt to stay a bit lower and use post digital gain later if necessary. It seems to keep things cleaner.
Well, with my d850, I can pretty much duplicate the results you got but I'm not sure it really proves anything except that boosting exposure in camera is the same as boosting it in Lightroom. When I properly expose images at different iso values, lower iso values always give lower noise. Seems to me that this is just a demonstration of the wide dynamic range of the sensor. Since I usually shoot landscapes, I think I'll stick with low iso settings to get the best images.
Who says the Lightroom algoritm is identical to the ones in-camera? People tend to take LR as THE ONLY and CORRECT post processing tool, no matter how many times we have seen that LR does not handle a specific raw file from a specific camera any good ? Heck they seem to still use the dreaded recovery-tool before you even see your photo...
Watching both yours and Tony's videos today was fascinating. You didn't so much "bust" Tony's claims, as essentially prove the same things. Sure, there are very subtle differences, but overall I think you guys both nailed the basic concepts. But, despite all the techy stuff, the thing that impressed me the most about your video was the clear respect and admiration that you gave Tony, even though your conclusions were slightly different. This is EXACTLY the kind of robust debate that makes it a win-win for all of us. Thank you so much for being firm, clear, and very gracious.
Great videos by both of you guys! So, we don't and will probably never really know if the "just boosting gain" theory is exactly correct. Even if the gain theory is correct as to which Tony suggests, the way Adobe Camera RAW interprets boosting 5 stops to get to 3200 ISO compared to say a Nikon RAW file "Before" it becomes a NEF file COULD be different. Hince, why you are seeing more grain in the 100 ISO boost shot. Either way, this is super interesting stuff and I am glad there are people like you guys and Tony who make videos about these subjects!!! :D Also, using your REALLY old Nikon might be too far apart generation wise. The sensitivity of the first generation sensors could have just been really bad on those really off compared to what we have now. But that is hard to say. Would be cool to test with a D700/D3 VS a D610/D750 to D810 to D850.
Jim Boomer this is what I was saying off camera. I wanted to test it by boosting the 100 iso file in camera with Nikon’s NEF processor. Unfortunately it only boosts the EV by 2 stops. -P
Exactly - I suspect the files are different only because the algorithms used to boost the exposure in the camera are different than those used by ACR. So not necessarily more noise, just different noise. I think we DO know that it's just boosting gain - we just don't know exactly how each camera does it. The sensor would have to physically change for the actual sensitivity of the photosites to change. I also think older cameras are definitely "less ISO-less" than newer cameras.
These are not "great videos" at all. Both authors don't seem to know the first thing about ISO on digital cameras. Look up "analogue gain" vs "digital gain". Look up "dual gain sensor". Look up "ISO invariance" and understand when it does *not* apply.
This is eye opening stuff. Thanks to you and Tony. Is the reverse true? If you “accidentally” shoot at an absurdly high ISO, can you reduce the stops and get the image out of a blown out shot? My guess is “no” .. but maybe not
You should retest using the same tstop and lens across all cameras rather than going off the fstop. Usually fstops are off on most manufacturers, check dxo mark.
There are two variables that could be in play here as i didn't hear you mention anything about. The first is that the D1H has a CCD sensor vs the CMOS sensor of the D750 and D850. The other is when doing the ISO Photoshop boost did you turn completely off the high ISO noise reduction in the camera? By default it is usually set to some level of reduction.
We need to use a scientific standard to sort this out and call out fowl play. The lumens could be measured from glass to sensor and sensor readout directly but we would need an efficient method of transfer after that to judge final output, manufactures probably wouldn't like this plus the different software engines they are running will have a part to play as well. Not too mention, the frequency range of all light gathered and the levels from within would also need standardisation. A bit like measuring headphone performance (actual studio quality, not prosumer, rich kid or gamer BS).
If you look on DXOMark, they actually test sensitivity vs advertised ISO, and from what I recall, there's quite a bit of variance, but most cameras are somewhere around half a stop less sensitive than their nominal ISO values suggest.
For post processing I'll submit that you would want to use several other products (Capture One, ON1 etc.) to see what they do to the RAW files. The "dust" you see in the blacks may not appear with someone else's RAW converter. Very good follow up to Tony's video.
Looks like you proved BOTH of Tony’s points and perhaps were just confused on the first test. The newer cameras make the same exposure look “brighter” (hence fake better ISO performance). The second test is also proven, and the “noise” difference Lee points out is splitting hairs and easily attributable to differences in the gain calculations between Nikon in-camera vs Photoshop in-computer.
I think you have it backwards. If ISO 6400 was actually ISO 4000 in order to make ISO 6400 look better then ISO 400 would be actually ISO320 if the pattern stays consistent. What I have found with all my Nikons and m4/3 cameras is that ISO100-800 seems to be the same across most cameras and only when getting to ISO 1600 and up do the shenanigans start where it reads a higher ISO than what it actually is. If ISO 12,800 is really ISO 8000 then a shot at that setting would look pretty good on a FF camera when the previous model maybe had the same look at shows ISO 10,000 but was actually ISO 6000. My m4/3 looks great up to 3200 and still very good at ISO 6400. If I had a light meter I could see what the meter shows I need at that ISO to see if the camera is lying or not. When I tested high iso, I just took images at ISO 1600 and up in 1/2 ISO steps and was able to see where the quality was too low for my standards for whatever size print. I tried with my Nikon stuff and found the variation among the 3 cameras I had but I didn't test the same exact settings on the same studio lit item with m4/3 to directly compare the same lighting and see how it matched up ISO wise.I have a D5300 for the Nikon 10-20mm, I will have to try it against my G7 and G85 and see if they are all the same at the same high ISO.
Yeah and noise reduction filters may have been set differently in the RAW file after the picture was shot. Nikon Picture Control can even affect some of that noise. For example, higher contrast setting..? I saw Tony's video before I saw this one a day or so ago. I agree with you, it would seem having more brightness at lower ISOs would be an advantage. And so iso 100 is actually more like iso 50 like what Tony says... I think that he proved his claim.
I'm confused. The shot that was pushed five stops clearly shows much more chroma and luma noise plus the funky white dots.How does that prove anything except shooting at 3200 produces better pictures?
In your test with the three cameras, isn't it the oldest camera that has the darkest picture at the same ISO as the newer cameras? This result then isn't "the opposite". You have to lower the ISO setting of the newer cameras making it appear that they get the same exposure at a lower ISO.
keep in mind that you may have the high iso noise reduction setting on in your camera. if you have it off then you would likely get the same color noise as you did in photoshop.
When it involves skin tone, though, I think that ISO-100-pushed-5-stop photo will show unnatural look. I would shoot at ISO 3200 when shooting people in this setting.
It would have been a more interesting test if it was only 2-3 stops underexposed. I bet they would have recovered almost perfectly in that case. The fact you can recover five stops and even have a somewhat usable image is simply mind blowing.
@@elvirredzepovic6898 funny thing I make one people test from his d810 which is supposed to be iso invariant at 400 iso. And he said yes it's more magenta if you boost 640 iso to 6400 iso. Of course this moron didn't set the same white balance. So sometime people Cannot test correctly
Tony failed to mention the sensor needs to be iso invariant you need to check the list of iso invarient cameras. Most Sony’s are. Canon isn’t fuji xtrans is. Also there are two groups. Iso base -400 then iso 640 to 6400. My Sony a7iii is invariant as are my fuji. But the 5dmk4 isn’t. I didn’t think the Nikon was either. I’ll agree that applying gain in post as opposed to in camera has its benefits for example retaining highlights and better colours. But the in camera gain seems better than Lightrooms. I did it and explained in my video a few month back. As far back as the fujifilm xt1 was invariant. Weird that canon isn’t. It’s ideal for timelaps shoots as you can underexpose and retain better highlights and lift the exposure instead of clipping when it got too bright for example 😊👍🏻 there are a few cameras on here that are and are not. Check it out 😊❤️📷 improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/
the 5Dmk4 is "partly ISO-invariant". "The 5D Mark IV isn't entirely ISO-invariant: pushing an ISO 200 underexposed by 5 stops by 5 EV in post-processing yields slightly higher noise levels than a native ISO 6400 exposure. An ISO 100 exposure pushed 6 stops fares even worse. However, above ISO 400, the camera does, for the most part, exhibit ISO invariance, meaning that you could underexpose a traditional ISO 6400 exposure by 4 EV by shooting it at ISO 400 (while maintaining the shutter speed and aperture for ISO 6400), and then raise exposure 4 EV in post. This technique would afford you 4 EV of highlight headroom, with little to no noise cost, relative to shooting at ISO 6400." www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/11
Thanks, I was going to test it myself. It was a wild claim from Tony, not what I would have imagined. It makes me think it is OK to play it safe and underexpose in some cases where the lighting is being difficult, if you need the higher shutter speed to freeze the action.
The lost dynamic range is a significant thing to keep in mind with modern cameras. As you increase your ISO, you start clipping highlights within the RAW file. Once that file is saved, and that pixel is registered as a full well, there is no longer any data to be recovered. So, if you shoot a file at ISO-3200 to get detail into the deep shadows, you will lose, beyond recovery, the details in the highlights. The reverse is not true, as you have just demonstrated. Even 5 stops of push (Which is a damed lot!), does not cause any significant degradation of the file quality. Hence, the old rule of "expose to the right" is defunct.
Thats not exactly true. Certain cameras actually gain highlights as you go up in ISOs. For example. The blackmagic pocket Cinema camera 4k actually has more stops in the highlights as you go up in ISOs, then it resets when you hit the 2nd circuit of the dual native ISO
Exposure to the right is not defunct at all, it's just that changing ISO has no effect on exposure. Exposure is a function of scene luminescence, aperture ratio, and shutter speed.
I have tried with EOS R6. I set the adjusted the exposure for ISO3200 and then I took with ISO200. I pushed the ISO200 one 4 stops in Camera Raw and I would say pushed image is much more noisy and also dynamic range was less then ISO3200 one, especially in shadows. But in the other hand, the pushed one was still usable.
I really loved everything about this video. I think you should have a Mythbusting section in your channel. This is one of the myths I was wondering about and love seeing it put to the test using an old to a new pro camera body test. I also like that it got straight to the point some TH-camrs like to ramble on and go on tangents. Stick to the topic at hand and make a different video on your tangent. Great job.
Indeed. More precisely, according to Wikipedia: >> ISO is not an acronym. The organization adopted ISO as its abbreviated name in reference to the Greek word isos (ίσος, meaning "equal") But in the end, hearing it as being pronounced "I.S.O." here and there is really not a reason to go nuts ;-) Go out for shooting, that's better for the health than to discuss endlessly the right pronounciation of the 3rd member of the exposure triangle. Oh wait, it's not even that; Ken W. would bash the sh** out of me if he read this technically false statement...
@@korm87 yes previously asa was used and that was an acronym. Iso is not an acronym though. www.iso.org/about-us.html Straight from the company's own website. They say it themselves the founders used the word iso taken from greek word isos meaning equal.
Jeezus you guys, talk about splitting hairs. The organization is in fact an acronym I.S.O... But in order to keep the rating acronym consistent across different countries, they came up with some silly excuse about the greek meaning of Isos... Again, literally just to make sure every country said their ACRONYM correctly. Actually getting annoyed and correcting that level of minutia frankly makes you look dumber than just using the acronym everyone understands.
I checked p1000, and while shooting in complete darkness in raw I got exactly the same amount of noise and details in both iso100 and iso6400. I amplified brightness by 7 or 10 stops! I used a little amount of color denoising that has removed the color noise from iso100 phito, so the photos are looked completely identical. What was different is the level of black, so I adjusted it manually using the curve.
You are not even convinced of each other's explanations and arguing who is right or wrong. This type of info could be answered only by manufacturers. So this is all nonsense. Goodbye
Good video. Is there any NR used in this test? Will it give the same result when you use other raw converter (eg. Nikon Cap. NX, Cap. One)? And one more funny thing is that Nikon in camera raw converter suck badly.
Tony used Lightroom, you used Photoshop. LR has noise (and color noise) reduction sliders which if you have used them, then the image would have been exactly like the one taken from Nikon at ISO 3200. The camera simply applies some noise reduction techniques when shooting at an ISO higher than 100, in rest is just software gain.
Critical Point But does it apply noise reduction before writing the NEF file? I was always told raw files don’t have any noise reduction/sharpening/shadow recovery etc. -P
Critical Point - Then doesn't that prove his point, when treating both files the same way (meaning, not doing color noise reduction) doesn't that reflex that the files are not identical?
@@FStoppers Check out some of the forums on dpreview or photonstophotos, Nikon is known for baking in a level of noise reduction in blacks in the raw file itself.
The amplification value of the chosen ISO is added before the digital conversion of the signal, and not afterwards, like changing the exposure value in Lightroom would. This decreases the noise in the image.
@@bassangler73 its international organization for standardization. Iso is a 3 letter word the founders of the company used, which comes from the greek word isos, meaning equal. This information is all public knowledge and free for anyone who cares to take the time to go to the company's website and look for themselves. Or you could call them and hear them answer the phone amd see if they say i.s.o. or eye-so (spoiler alert, they will say eye-so). 🙂
Just made a test on my canon T6. With iso 12800 and with 100. When trying to increase exposure with iso 100 the result was a garbage, onestly, there's a mechanical difference when shooting with higher iso, I do think that the sensors became more sensitive.
@@FStoppers The only difference I see is that the DH1 uses a CCD sensor and the D750 & D850 use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise. That is because each pixel on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower. CMOS sensors are just now improving to the point where they reach near parity with CCD devices in some applications. Maybe why the test was not identical and you had different noise levels.
@@ronyedin i agree. i've read CCDs give better and cleaner image quality when i was searching budget camera bodies for astrophotography. but it's not as efficient and cost-effective as the widely popular CMOS sensor so camera manufacturers moved away from it.
raizen82 but a cleaner file shouldn’t mean the ISO standard is suddenly different because it’s cmos or ccd! That’s like saying their should be a different rating of ISO for Ilford and Kodak films. A sensitivity rating is a sensitivity rating. -P
@@FStoppers that's why i think your first test already showed ISO isn't actually a standard but arbitrary both across sensor tech and company manufacturer or even within camera models from the same manufacturer
Even newer cameras apply analog gain to the sensor signal before running it through the ADC when you turn the camera ISO up. To a point, analog gain before ADC will result in a cleaner image as a significant amount of the noise you see comes from the ADC and a larger signal into the ADC is a cleaner conversion. The larger signal can be either more light, or more analog gain. More light is cleaner than more analog gain, but more analog gain is cleaner (by a lot) than gaining the signal up after the ADC (digital gain).
yeah I'm aware of the underexposed boosting method since the first time I got a dslr, the camera must give a good dynamic range to do so, I think that this isnt possible with canon raw files, I assume you get more noise from the boosted low ISO image because of the high iso nr function, also when an image is over exposed its not possible to bring it back, it only works with under exposed images at low ISOs.
Uggg,....all image sensors are pre-amped when they are converted to digital. That conversion is set by the camera company to be whatever "ISO" they want their "0db" to equal. (some cameras have TWO "0db's"...low 0db and high 0db) and Remember...all raw sensor data is saved at "0db"....ONLY. There is NO USER ADJUSTABLE GAIN APPLIED TO THAT RAW COLLECTION. This only happens whee the raw data is assembled into a .jpg. The raw data ALWAYS stays at native "0db". If you add +12db to your .jpg, than a "+12db" FLAG is added to the raw metadata. It's only a FLAG given to your RAW reader to apply a default +12db on RAW assembly. The RAW data in the file still exists at "0db"...always. Gain is a destructive process and that's why it's NEVER calculated into RAW's 0db status. This is why raw has the highlight recovery ability that it does....because you CANNOT CLIP IT USING CAMERA GAIN LIKE YOU CAN A JPG!
It really varies with the camera body. I've owned both types of cameras and the ones that do not add gain at the chip level tend to have less noise at the higher isos.
@@jacquesvroom Thats not true. Things can be truely identical. For example, we know that each single electron has an identical electric charge. We know that there is no deviation at all. Same thing goes for quarks for example. On that micro scale we also do have truely random things you wouldn't encounter in a macro scale.
That thing about those white dots is really important. I use an entry level DSLR and I have encountered huge problems with underexposing my images by mistake. Once when I underexposed my images a lot and brought them back in Lightroom some of the areas which were black turned completely white while editing. Lightroom just went crazy. If I underexpose by one stop it's fine but when I try to push it further the editing part gets tricky at times. ISO might not seem like a big deal after all, you just need to get it around the correct value but when it comes to us - entry level camera users or crop-sensor users in general the difference between setting the correct ISO might be huge.
Great video! I subscribe to both Tony Northrup's, as well as your youtube channel. Your calm demeanor, and civility are greatly appreciated! Thanks again for a great objective, unbiased, rant free video!
@@bassangler73 ugh. There is no international standards organization. It is the international organization for standardization. And they say directly on their website, and if you want to call them and talk to them yourself, they will tell you it is no abbreviation. For the simple fact that the acronym would change in different languages. IOS if it is in english. And different orders in different languages. So the founders decided to use the 3 letter word ISO, which comes from the greek word isos, meaning equal. And in all of the company's videos, they themselves, pronounce it eye-so. Which again, you can check for yourself if you cared to do some research. 🙂
@@bassangler73 www.iso.org/about-us.html They say it themselves. On their own website. Iso is not an acronym or abbreviation. Iso is a 3 letter word the founders used which comes from the greek word isos which means equal. The company says it themselves. Directly on their own website. Not some reference website. Their own website. There is no international standards organization. It is the international organization for standardization. And again. If you wanted to hear them directly, just call the company yourself and see how they answer their own phones. I will tell you what you wont hear them say. You wont hear them say I.S.O.
Keep in mind that the software processing between light room and the in camera processor is different and results may vary. You could try Capture One or Affinity and still see difference in the way noise is processed. They are close and this means the camera is "Iso Invariant". Try the same on a Canon 5D mkIV and the results between the files would be huge, because Canon is not really ISO invariant. The most ISO Invariant camera to my knowledge is the Olympus EM5MKII
yes and no. YES ISO sensitivity is getting better as technology advances. NO because he compared a DX sensor to a Full Frame that is why there is a 1 stop difference. Bigger sensor gathers more light. he was testing ISO not exposure that is why Lee did not bother to properly expose the D750 and D850. he stayed at 1/30th of a second on all test. watch 2:03
@@Dylon1981 bigger sensor does not gather more light. Take a light meter and meter a scene. There is no setting for sensor size. Higher pixel pitch affects light gathering resulting in less noise, not different exposure. Crop sensor takes the same image as full frame, only cropped. If you take a crop sensor camera and full frame with the same pixel pitch, exposure will be the same. Crop the full frame image to the crop sensor image, size it to the crop sensor image and the amount of noise is the same.
If I remember correctly, there is by default some DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) for high ISO, which can be a problem for astrophotgraphy, and you can disable that in the setting. It would be interesting to see if with that particular setting disabled the pushed file grain looks same as the one shot at ISO 3200.
The difference you found is actually the process of of raw processing the "High ISO set" image to shift the "Chromatic Noise" to "Luminance Noise" which is more pleasing to a photographer because it looks more acceptable and filmic the "silver hallide clumping" yumminess of film grain is not always bad. It's also a way of mitigating huge file size as the resulting colour noise would make the file incredibly huge the colour averaging of the noise make it more manageable to save.
this proof what i always thought, there are certen numers of steps that in the camera when u change the iso it really change something related to the sensitivity of the sensor, but in the steps u start seeing the noise is when the camera just postprocess and just push up the raw file. Thats why if my camera starts making noise at 6400iso for example i just shoot in that iso maximun or one step back and if i need to add more light i do it by software in computer i think this prevents crazy colors coming up.
For the second test one other thing that might be going on is that the default noise reduction settings of the raw file is different at different ISO settings. You could possibly get a more identical result by tweaking noise reduction parameters, not just only the exposure.
i like this video. I use lightroom too, i was thinking maybe try capture one and see if the artifacting is still there. i was thinking the iso boost may be higher quality over lr if that makes sense and maybe capture one would eliminate that bottleneck
Same comment I made on Tony’s. Since ISO is gain you can not isolate the result from signal to noise. It can vary greatly, just as in audio equipment with the quality of the amplification (hardware) and the case of the digital the, software.
In video this is a bit more known because videocamera’s often use gain measured in decibels. Alister Chapman had some interesting content about that. In the end, amplifying the signal on the sensor level will probably always be better then in post but the difference is small. RED camera’s even use ISO/gain as a metadata setting, you can set the iso in post!
This might work as you've shown with more modern Canon/higher model number Canon gear, but it looks like crap when I tried this with my EOS 80D, lots of yucky banding, didn't even bother looking up close for noise but sure it was there too. What I'd like to know is how "Picture Styles" affect the RAW file? Pretty sure I get a different RAW if I use Cinestyle picture style on my Canon Vs Neutral picture style. Also "exposing to the right" using different picture styles results in a different exposure using the in-camera histogram to expose. Does picture style affect RAW? Which Picture style gives the cleanest, highest dynamic range in RAW, do certain picture styles break down at higher ISOs more than others? Questions, questions!
I am so happy to see a very respectable way of challenging another's claim. I saw Tony's video and was very surprised when I learned ISO in digital cameras. I felt as though I was taken advantage of due to the fact that my decision to get a D810 was based on a couple of things, one of which was the base ISO of 64 . But over time I believe one learns what works with their camera and that any claims are meaningless.. Anyway, Kudos for the respect given, it comes back to you! at least with me..
Just a thought. I wonder if there is a distinction between electronic noise generated by internal components of the camera. For instance with long exposures and sensors heating up. Or digital Artifacting taking place due to in sufficient sensor data, ie clipping. Thus algorithms simply fill that void with something. Also this may suggest that perfect parity is not achievable and electronics do not behave in a linear fashion with regards to signal to noise ratios.
About iso 3200, the camera processor might applied some noise reduction so it seemed cleaner, i wonder how things would turn out if you add noise reduction to thee 100iso as well.
For any given camera, ISO is metadata-only (so doesn't matter if you change it in camera or in post - also called "ISO invariant") for a given range or set of ranges - usually above a certain ISO. For example the 5D MarkIV is ISO invariant between ISO400 and anything above - but below that it is NOT invariant. the 5D Mark II was not ISO invariant until, if I recall correctly, well above ISO 1600. Red cameras are purely ISO invariant, as is the Arri Raw codec. You have to look up the model of camera you are using to find out the range or ranges of ISO invariance to know. Testing one camera only tells you about that one model, and even then you would have to test all ISOs to find the range(s) of invariance.
@fstoppers Did you turn off noise reduction on the Nikon 850 when you did this comparison between iso 100 and 3200 pics? Obviously that would skew your comparison.
This could be depending on sensor. It might work on Sony sensors, but not for Canon. It also depends on what is done to create the raw file, which is different per manufacturer. (Nikon raw differs from Sony raw of the same sensor)
I responded to a comment below and I am going to express here again for anyone else interested in knowing in simple words why in digital cameras ISO setting is not equivalent to changing the exposure in post, although for some of the newer sensors the visible difference is small (i.e. D850). The signal flows at it follows: signal collection-> signal amplification (camera hardware ISO setting)->Analog to Digital conversion-> write to file-> edit and possibly signal amplification in raw editing software. Because the camera sets the iso amplification BEFORE reaching the AD conversion, there are 2 factors: 1) any noise picked up BETWEEN the amplifier and A/D converter is not amplified, but it will be if you boost the exposure in post, this is actually the major visible impact (more noise in the image) this can be a dramatic difference for non "ISO-invariant" sensors, 2) the A/D converter is used more effectively with hardware iso (in camera ISO setting) because the signal is not compressed in the low levels before A/D conversion, otherwise leaving the majority of the available higher levels empty (if you look at the very dark image histogram before getting boosted you will notice that it is dramatically shifted to the left leaving the majority of it empty). So , even if you have a 14bit A/D conversion, you are effectively using a lot fewer bits, maybe even only 8 bits, if you are underexposing a lot, making your image far more prone to quantization. I believe that is the reason of the artifacts noticed in the very dark areas in the video (6:15), it is like trying to get the details of clouds when they are almost white, because only very few discrete levels are describing the gradation, you start noticing artifacts due to quantization.
I haven't made a full test, but the Canon EOS 77D does usually expose slightly longer than my EOS 700D at the same ISO and aperture. The 77D definitly has a much better sensor but the fundamentally differ in the way that they expose. I think the noise level of them is pretty similar, but the sensor cut off for high brightness levels differ wildly. The 77D has so much more detail in the bright areas but similar detail in dark areas, when exposed with same aperture and shuter speed.
Check out your D850 settings for high ISO noise reduction, it’s usually on by default, and it essentially takes two photos one with the shutter open and one with the shutter closed to work out what the random noise pattern will be, and subtracts some noise from the output. I still prefer to shoot my D750 at ISO 100 for pretty much everything as it protects the highlights, and up to 3-4 stops of gain I really can’t see any difference in noise.
Does a digital sensor change sensitivity over time? Testing a 15 year old camera to a current camera may yield different results? Just a thought. And for the record, film was often not truly as fast as it was rated.
Hey guys, curious to know if pushing the exposure up with in-camera processing (from the Playback menu) would yield a closer-to-equal result. I would assume the way the camera processes exposure increases is different than lightroom. Not all exposure increases are created equal (lightroom, for example, does a WAY BETTER job than the old ViewNX 2 software).
i believe that the D1 used a different metering system where the metering was in the prism as it was based on the F5 which is why you can change metering modes on top of the prism?
Very good addon video, wish that someday there would be a frotalk gathering with fstoppers, tony& Chelsea and may be Ken Rockwell too. It would be fun to see you all together
I have watched Tony video also and I have checked DxOmark sensor database. I have found that actual ISO sensitivity of most of the cameras lays below ideal ISO line. It is only question how far.
Great video. Subscribed. I like people keeping Tony honest. I never know if he's speaking from experience or out the side of his backside. I did NOT think ISO settings mean nothing and you can fix it all in post. We need mythbusters like you to keep the tonys on the beam.
I think this is an appropriate way to test the merits of what Tony was talking about. So many people are quick to try and bust someones balls on TH-cam instead of dealing with it tactfully. I think the big picture is that ISO is not standardized and kind of manipulated to sell cameras. I see this tactic in scientific instruments specs in the field I work in all the time. A new product will boast xyz sensitivities at the factory to match the competition, but that spec is bogus once you install it in the real world or will only hold that spec for a year or so due to age. Kudos to you for not being a simple troll. I don't plan on underexposing my shots by 5 stops, but I see Tony's point.
Try it with an older sensor camera like a 5D or 5D mk2, and you'll be surprised again. Even at 2 stops under-exposed, you'll find that there is significantly more noise in the shadows, if not overall. the D850 is a new camera that possibly uses a different process from the sensor. Technology does change, right?
This like Tony's is a very good video. All manufacturres will vary somewhat by hardware, firmware and software. I think you guys have proved each other right. I like Tony's "need to know" side and your simple tst side but they don't disagree - point is proven, high end Nikon is arguably the best, perhaps handles 3 stops in camera, you hadd 5; difference 2, the noise looks like amplified gain noise. Thanks again.
You're missing something. Some sensors do actually change at a certain iso. So my Sony A7iii switches to a different mode when you hit 640. It amplifies the sensors signal via analog gain which produces less noise. So the camera is isoless...as long as you're in the same "range". 500 vs 100 would be the same. 3200 vs 640 would be the same. But 3200 vs 100 would not be the same.
On the D850 too?
@@FStoppers Same. All Sony sensors. after 640, You reach the point of ISO-Invariant.
www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d850-camera-review.html
This article mentions a dual iso. I'm just saying it's worth mentioning that it can be a variable. Then people can decide what they want to do with that info! Haha
All cameras are different but from the linked graph it appears the D850 has two levels of ISO invariance, one between 100-320 and one from 400 upwards (photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm - and chose D850 on the right). Some cameras exhibit ISO invariant behaviour from 100 upwards, some like tha A7iii and apparently D850 have two levels of ISO invariant behaviour. Some like the 6D only exhibit ISO invariant behaviour after ISO3200. Probably the best write up about ISO invariance can be found on lonelyspeck or photographylife.
www.lonelyspeck.com/how-to-find-the-best-iso-for-astrophotography-dynamic-range-and-noise/
@@jeffluo9591 I'd like to know more about that, and I seem to be reading conflicting numbers here in the comments, while a quick search on the internet only yields articles with vague claims. You claim the thresshold is at 640, Alyn Wallace claims the threshold is at 400. Have any sources so I may know where the threshold actually is? (interested on the D750 and D850 values)
Tony gets criticized a lot for some of his opinions, but I’ve found that he’s usually able to back up his claims in pretty reliable ways.
As a digital media teacher whose classroom is right next door to a traditional film classroom, I can confirm that iso from film to digital is a mess of confusion.
Read my comment above, unless you have an "ISO-invariat" sensor Tony is very wrong. If you expect to see what he states, to say with the just announced Canon RP you would be very disappointed.
@@armandot9137 even with an ISO invariant sensor there is more bit depth in the highlights of a raw file than the shadows, if you're pulling information out of the shadows you'll lose some amount of detail compared to if you stored them in the highlights of the file by using a higher ISO. on the other hand using a higher ISO costs you dynamic range.
@@TimSheehan I absolutely agree. I just did not feel like needing to go in the deeper details ;-)
@@armandot9137 Regardless of the method used to increase and decrease the sensor sensitivity, ISO standards should yield the same results in exposure (within a margin of course).
Dude...Tony has no idea how to read a flash meter....Nor how it works. That channels is a joke.
Photographers only just finding out what ISO is and us astrophotographers just enjoying the popcorn
@@tobiasyoder it is indeed but we're far more scientific in our approach (and have a million more reasons to understand ISO properly). But we're kinda fed up of people saying false statements like "higher ISO = more noise". Nice to see people are waking up to ISO invariance though, it's highly useful knowledge
Lol hoping astrophotography sounds as cool as astrophysics. No different from food photography. Anyway, from what I've gathered, ISO is just gain applied after the exposure.. however the gain applied by the camera's amplifiers in the signal chain is different from the gain you can get from software. Maybe that's why the exposures in this video looked different.
@@Triple070007 yep it's gain but the difference is that some cameras induce noise into the image after the amplification gain in camera. This is why there's a difference with boosting in post with some cameras. Cameras that don't add much noise after the amplification in camera are those that behave iso invariant so you can boost in post and get a similar result
Some modes of applying exposure gain are better than others. People super into photography tech are still adorably unaware of how anything about cameras work. News at 11.
@@AlynWallace same boat here, seen too many time people doing astro saying "I kept ISO low to keep the noise low" while they actually destroyed the image.
Ironically enough an article was recently published on Fstoppers explaining ISO the wrong way :)
Some of the noise comes from the rounding of the number. In a 14 bit raw file, the intensity of a pixel changes from 0 to 16384, so a correctly exposed picture's rounding error is almost negligible.
However, when you underexpose by 5 stops, you effectively have 8-9 bit raw file bit intensity varying from 0 to 200-500, where shadows of this image have a small number of intensity. Then the rounding error becomes significant.
Thanks for keeping it civil and respectful two of my favorite channels, hopefully one day you guys will collab.
Johannes Lopez gotta get Tony to Puerto Rico first :) -P
@@FStoppers I am sure Tony would love to :-) love your channel guys and the website!
@@FStoppers Seeing this a month later but OK :)
@@TonyAndChelsea This would be so lit 😂😂😂 All 4 of you!
This video was really quite well done. I really liked how you were so humble and not trying to find fault with Tony or anyone else. You're a class act!
The D1H has a CCD sensor and all newer bodys have a CMOS Sensor.
That could affect your ISO -settings.
Few years ago I’ve read a research paper about photo sensors. The skinny of it is: sensors do have constant dynamic range but photo cameras also have hardware noise reduction that cleans up RAW data before saving it. Some dynamic range is cut on the bright side in the process, that’s why you can’t recover overexposed high ISOs. Extended ISO range is when hardware NR is disabled or inactive so you basically get same results as Camera RAW exposure slider. And there is Red cinema cameras that function exactly as Tony described - if sensor itself wasn’t clipped and there is still signal in shadows then you can totally recover anything. However Red has new Gemini camera with dual ISO and it’s low light ISO setting does have hardware NR, so you get lesser dynamic range, but also much cleaner image with higher overall exposure
At a basic level of understanding, the ISO is just brightening the image; But for a better result, its better to do this before committing the data to file than after. A digital file format has limitations at extreme dark or light dynamic ranges, because the information is quantized in to a small part of the dynamic range. The result is that the file cant hold as much information from a dark image than a correctly metered image. This I think is the main reason for the differences.
You are most right about what this video couldn't figure out. Nature has almost unlimited colors but digitization must limit the color palette one way or another.
It's actually a form of compression artifacting but in a small scale since those files are technically(by name) uncompressed.
I think you guys made the same point but maybe I'm confused a little. In your first test, if the D750 and D850 shows the photo is overexposed @ ISO 400, doesn't it mean that you can get the same exposure as the D1H @ a lower ISO?? Hence the selling point!
That was my impression as well. If they were exaggerating “ISO” performance, the image would appear brighter at the same ISO setting - which it did.
Yes, it should have been shot at 200, right?
Tony was arguing that you would take a photo with an old camera at iso 3200 and a new camera at iso 3200 and notice there is less noise in the new cameras image at the “same” iso. While in reality it might actually be shooting a darker image at iso 1600 but it changed the number to 3200
Something is missing here, the D1h is using CCD sensor while others are CMOS sensor. So I reckon that the ISO calculation maybe different because of this.
Try d700
The D850 has a second gain boost at ISO400, so that’s probably why you didn’t get exactly the same result. Try comparing ISO400 to ISO3200.
First of all.. ISO in sensor is obtained by changing the Vcc voltage of the sensor. Although it's not canged for every ISO setting rather is decided in bands, for eg. 100-400 have the same input voltage of the sensor and the rest is processed by the processor.
Second, the Exposure settings in LR or PS are complex algorithms simulating exposure equivalence but is not eqivalent.
Third, in the internal processing of an image some other things are applied, like dark current clipping, witch in Nikon cameras is pretty hard, and this is the reason untill d850 and partially d800a the Nikon cameras where not the one used for astrophotography.
Dark current clipping is omitting the darkes informations in the image, to be breaf.
Fourth, the RAW file is nothing like the the true image comming from the sensor, it is heavily processed, not only in sharpness or contrast... The real image from the sensor is mostly magenta in tone and you would never be able to match it to the scene by hand in PS.
It was. But is it now days on iso invariant sensors?
No. The sensor's sensitivity has *nothing* to do with its digital supply.
Analog gain is a thing, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
Multiple gain architecture is only used on some sensors, others only have one analog gain set in silicon. The real image from a sensor, when debayered, will look very green, not magenta.
@@Spirit532 I don't understand what you say about the 'real' image which would look green. The bayer matrix of the sensors has twice as much green points than red and blue, so what would be the real image?
What I understood that the human eye is extremely good at distinguishing between slightest differences of greens but not as good on other colours, thus sensors use more green elements than other colours. And of course since three colours channels are recorded and you want to keep the rectangular and repeating matrix one colour has to have more sensor elements than the two others.
@@FreakAzoiyd You've answered your own question.
5:07 "OK, I'm going to do this live, on camera 5:11 :)
This will practically change how I go about my shoots. I used to be scared of underexposing, now I guess there's one less thing to worry about in the field. Of course we as photographers should do our own further testing with our own camera models. I'm gonna do that right away after this
Hi Fstoppers .. I don't think you found evidence for "the opposite to be true"
I think what you discovered in your old vs new Nikon teest is actually the fundamental problem Tony Northrop refers to.
The sensor technology between the old and the newer cameras improved so much that the older camera needs to boost the signal (gain) significanly more than the newer ones. Increased gain generally leads to more noise. So the improved sensor technology allows you to shoot the same picture at a lower gain and therefore noise.
Regarding ISO number inflation, there might be some truth to Tony's observation, until there is a clear standard/reference it can and will be used to make the product look better. Bigger Numbers make it look better for sales... same as GHz on devices, HP on cars etc. ...
Regarding your second test
Yes there can be some "processing" going one before the image is stored ... you need to digitise the analog signal
Every pixel in the end has a limited capacity of storing different information. Lets assume there are only 1024 brightness levels
Correctly exposed you will used camera gain and all 1024 Levels, but when underexposing 5 stops you cram all the information in just 32 levels
Because the gain gets applied after the values are digitised it is possible that this causes artefacts
Analog | 5 Stop Gain || Digital Value | 5 Stop Gain
7.968 | 255 || 7 | 224
8 | 256 || 8 | 256
8.0312 | 257 || 8 | 256
While the Analog values are actually very close to each other the post digitised values can be the same or very far apart
In an ideal world where the RAW file is able to store infinitely/sufficiently precise, there is no difference between the two
For now, using ETTR you can use the information capacity within a RAW file as much as possible.
Also high information RAW formats today allow you to be off by 2-3 stops, without loosing too much informatinon
.. and as always ... your mileage may vary ...
I love it when my favourite channels reply to each other and even challenge claims of others (in friendly manner). No matter who is right in the end, it puts out quite a lot of interesting information out and a few forth and back discussions generate more tests and claritications.
What Tony says if I understand it correctly is that if that the image is pushed 5 stops in the camera the images would look exactly the same?? All software process the images differently. Lightroom would not do it in the exact same way as the software in the camera.
Magnus Eriksson I want to try this but Nikon’s in camera NEF editor only pushes an image 2 stops. Maybe their proprietary NEF software ( is it still capture nx?) would do the same thing? -P
Tony just exposes his ignorance when he claims that all cameras exhibit "ISO invariance". ADC (analogue to digital conversion) is handled differently by different sensors. Some use analogue gain in which case Tony's claims fall flat. Then there are the modern dual gain sensors where ISO invariance holds but only in two separate ISO ranges. This stuff is really not complicated.
Bingo!
Wonderful video on the theory. This is how photography forums should be done. Being civil and respectful about the matter even if you don't agree on every single point. Love this channel!!
For the iso invariant test, your software matters. Capture One will give you a better result. Also, you get more highlight details in return, when you do that kind of boost, that's how you can get the "Film look".
Jonas CaptureOne rules!
@@ARMAJOV Indeed, but Capture one does some things automatically if you don't disable it. You can get (nearly) the same in Photoshop, it is just not the same set of defaults. In the tests in this video I wonder if Nikon does some high-ISO noise reduction like Sony does. If this is not deactivated, of cause there is more noise in the low-ISO picture. Tony did not mention those details. (According to some camera tutorials I think he must be aware of this in general. Maybe he left it out intentionally.) But the claims are more or less correct. The picture is the same within the sensor, the rest is signal processing. (Just ignoring possible dark frames or combinations of more than one picture in camera.) Reducing this topic to the exposure setting only is a bit too primitive thought. Lee is really no technician. @Lee, if there is a setting like Sonys high-ISO noise reduction, please disable it and re-shoot your example.
@@ulrichsiebald144 that was kinda my thiughts also. However the iso 100 pic has a ton of noise. Just different noise. If noise reduction was on its pretty crappy.
Really well done! This strikes me as a good example of how the scientific method should work. Tony posited some hypotheses, you guys test and find your results, then the data are what they are. I really appreciate that over stupid, drama-based flame wars.
Oh yes, one or two tests provides scientific proof now days. Fake science.
It's a lot like recording audio;
Good Level + no post gain = better quality and less distortion.
Low Level + post gain = worse quality, background noise, artifacts.
Musician?
I agree. I do sound recording/mixing. Getting a good level into your mics trumps all just like getting good light levels in photography. It means you can drive your preamps lower (equivalent to using low ISO). Analog gain circuitry like mic preamps adds noise especially if pushed too far. In that case i opt to stay a bit lower and use post digital gain later if necessary. It seems to keep things cleaner.
Well, with my d850, I can pretty much duplicate the results you got but I'm not sure it really proves anything except that boosting exposure in camera is the same as boosting it in Lightroom. When I properly expose images at different iso values, lower iso values always give lower noise. Seems to me that this is just a demonstration of the wide dynamic range of the sensor. Since I usually shoot landscapes, I think I'll stick with low iso settings to get the best images.
Who says the Lightroom algoritm is identical to the ones in-camera? People tend to take LR as THE ONLY and CORRECT post processing tool, no matter how many times we have seen that LR does not handle a specific raw file from a specific camera any good ? Heck they seem to still use the dreaded recovery-tool before you even see your photo...
Watching both yours and Tony's videos today was fascinating. You didn't so much "bust" Tony's claims, as essentially prove the same things. Sure, there are very subtle differences, but overall I think you guys both nailed the basic concepts. But, despite all the techy stuff, the thing that impressed me the most about your video was the clear respect and admiration that you gave Tony, even though your conclusions were slightly different. This is EXACTLY the kind of robust debate that makes it a win-win for all of us. Thank you so much for being firm, clear, and very gracious.
Great videos by both of you guys! So, we don't and will probably never really know if the "just boosting gain" theory is exactly correct. Even if the gain theory is correct as to which Tony suggests, the way Adobe Camera RAW interprets boosting 5 stops to get to 3200 ISO compared to say a Nikon RAW file "Before" it becomes a NEF file COULD be different. Hince, why you are seeing more grain in the 100 ISO boost shot. Either way, this is super interesting stuff and I am glad there are people like you guys and Tony who make videos about these subjects!!! :D Also, using your REALLY old Nikon might be too far apart generation wise. The sensitivity of the first generation sensors could have just been really bad on those really off compared to what we have now. But that is hard to say. Would be cool to test with a D700/D3 VS a D610/D750 to D810 to D850.
Jim Boomer this is what I was saying off camera. I wanted to test it by boosting the 100 iso file in camera with Nikon’s NEF processor. Unfortunately it only boosts the EV by 2 stops. -P
It's not impossible to know, just test it :)
Exactly - I suspect the files are different only because the algorithms used to boost the exposure in the camera are different than those used by ACR. So not necessarily more noise, just different noise. I think we DO know that it's just boosting gain - we just don't know exactly how each camera does it. The sensor would have to physically change for the actual sensitivity of the photosites to change. I also think older cameras are definitely "less ISO-less" than newer cameras.
These are not "great videos" at all. Both authors don't seem to know the first thing about ISO on digital cameras. Look up "analogue gain" vs "digital gain". Look up "dual gain sensor". Look up "ISO invariance" and understand when it does *not* apply.
This is eye opening stuff. Thanks to you and Tony.
Is the reverse true? If you “accidentally” shoot at an absurdly high ISO, can you reduce the stops and get the image out of a blown out shot?
My guess is “no” .. but maybe not
You should retest using the same tstop and lens across all cameras rather than going off the fstop. Usually fstops are off on most manufacturers, check dxo mark.
I used the exact same lens at 2.8 so it would t change between cameras
There are two variables that could be in play here as i didn't hear you mention anything about. The first is that the D1H has a CCD sensor vs the CMOS sensor of the D750 and D850. The other is when doing the ISO Photoshop boost did you turn completely off the high ISO noise reduction in the camera? By default it is usually set to some level of reduction.
We need to use a scientific standard to sort this out and call out fowl play.
The lumens could be measured from glass to sensor and sensor readout directly but we would need an efficient method of transfer after that to judge final output, manufactures probably wouldn't like this plus the different software engines they are running will have a part to play as well.
Not too mention, the frequency range of all light gathered and the levels from within would also need standardisation. A bit like measuring headphone performance (actual studio quality, not prosumer, rich kid or gamer BS).
Fowl play like.. chickens?
If you look on DXOMark, they actually test sensitivity vs advertised ISO, and from what I recall, there's quite a bit of variance, but most cameras are somewhere around half a stop less sensitive than their nominal ISO values suggest.
Birds play?
For post processing I'll submit that you would want to use several other products (Capture One, ON1 etc.) to see what they do to the RAW files. The "dust" you see in the blacks may not appear with someone else's RAW converter. Very good follow up to Tony's video.
Looks like you proved BOTH of Tony’s points and perhaps were just confused on the first test. The newer cameras make the same exposure look “brighter” (hence fake better ISO performance). The second test is also proven, and the “noise” difference Lee points out is splitting hairs and easily attributable to differences in the gain calculations between Nikon in-camera vs Photoshop in-computer.
I think you have it backwards. If ISO 6400 was actually ISO 4000 in order to make ISO 6400 look better then ISO 400 would be actually ISO320 if the pattern stays consistent. What I have found with all my Nikons and m4/3 cameras is that ISO100-800 seems to be the same across most cameras and only when getting to ISO 1600 and up do the shenanigans start where it reads a higher ISO than what it actually is. If ISO 12,800 is really ISO 8000 then a shot at that setting would look pretty good on a FF camera when the previous model maybe had the same look at shows ISO 10,000 but was actually ISO 6000. My m4/3 looks great up to 3200 and still very good at ISO 6400. If I had a light meter I could see what the meter shows I need at that ISO to see if the camera is lying or not. When I tested high iso, I just took images at ISO 1600 and up in 1/2 ISO steps and was able to see where the quality was too low for my standards for whatever size print. I tried with my Nikon stuff and found the variation among the 3 cameras I had but I didn't test the same exact settings on the same studio lit item with m4/3 to directly compare the same lighting and see how it matched up ISO wise.I have a D5300 for the Nikon 10-20mm, I will have to try it against my G7 and G85 and see if they are all the same at the same high ISO.
Yeah and noise reduction filters may have been set differently in the RAW file after the picture was shot. Nikon Picture Control can even affect some of that noise. For example, higher contrast setting..? I saw Tony's video before I saw this one a day or so ago. I agree with you, it would seem having more brightness at lower ISOs would be an advantage. And so iso 100 is actually more like iso 50 like what Tony says... I think that he proved his claim.
I'm confused. The shot that was pushed five stops clearly shows much more chroma and luma noise plus the funky white dots.How does that prove anything except shooting at 3200 produces better pictures?
This is one of the reasons I love TH-cam. The near real-time interaction and reaction to other TH-camrs.
In your test with the three cameras, isn't it the oldest camera that has the darkest picture at the same ISO as the newer cameras? This result then isn't "the opposite". You have to lower the ISO setting of the newer cameras making it appear that they get the same exposure at a lower ISO.
keep in mind that you may have the high iso noise reduction setting on in your camera. if you have it off then you would likely get the same color noise as you did in photoshop.
When it involves skin tone, though, I think that ISO-100-pushed-5-stop photo will show unnatural look. I would shoot at ISO 3200 when shooting people in this setting.
Don't "think".... TRY !
It's not hard and itakes what 3 minutes to do and then you would KNOW. My god people are so lazy today.
It would have been a more interesting test if it was only 2-3 stops underexposed. I bet they would have recovered almost perfectly in that case. The fact you can recover five stops and even have a somewhat usable image is simply mind blowing.
@@elvirredzepovic6898 funny thing I make one people test from his d810 which is supposed to be iso invariant at 400 iso. And he said yes it's more magenta if you boost 640 iso to 6400 iso. Of course this moron didn't set the same white balance. So sometime people Cannot test correctly
What a masterful video - way to go!
Tony failed to mention the sensor needs to be iso invariant you need to check the list of iso invarient cameras. Most Sony’s are. Canon isn’t fuji xtrans is. Also there are two groups. Iso base -400 then iso 640 to 6400. My Sony a7iii is invariant as are my fuji. But the 5dmk4 isn’t. I didn’t think the Nikon was either. I’ll agree that applying gain in post as opposed to in camera has its benefits for example retaining highlights and better colours. But the in camera gain seems better than Lightrooms. I did it and explained in my video a few month back. As far back as the fujifilm xt1 was invariant. Weird that canon isn’t. It’s ideal for timelaps shoots as you can underexpose and retain better highlights and lift the exposure instead of clipping when it got too bright for example 😊👍🏻 there are a few cameras on here that are and are not. Check it out 😊❤️📷
improvephotography.com/34818/iso-invariance/
Most nikon's with sony sensors are aswell. My d7100 is not. If i push 5 stops all i get is color noise, banding and a green cast
the 5Dmk4 is "partly ISO-invariant".
"The 5D Mark IV isn't entirely ISO-invariant: pushing an ISO 200 underexposed by 5 stops by 5 EV in post-processing yields slightly higher noise levels than a native ISO 6400 exposure. An ISO 100 exposure pushed 6 stops fares even worse. However, above ISO 400, the camera does, for the most part, exhibit ISO invariance, meaning that you could underexpose a traditional ISO 6400 exposure by 4 EV by shooting it at ISO 400 (while maintaining the shutter speed and aperture for ISO 6400), and then raise exposure 4 EV in post. This technique would afford you 4 EV of highlight headroom, with little to no noise cost, relative to shooting at ISO 6400."
www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/11
Thanks, I was going to test it myself. It was a wild claim from Tony, not what I would have imagined. It makes me think it is OK to play it safe and underexpose in some cases where the lighting is being difficult, if you need the higher shutter speed to freeze the action.
The lost dynamic range is a significant thing to keep in mind with modern cameras. As you increase your ISO, you start clipping highlights within the RAW file. Once that file is saved, and that pixel is registered as a full well, there is no longer any data to be recovered.
So, if you shoot a file at ISO-3200 to get detail into the deep shadows, you will lose, beyond recovery, the details in the highlights. The reverse is not true, as you have just demonstrated. Even 5 stops of push (Which is a damed lot!), does not cause any significant degradation of the file quality.
Hence, the old rule of "expose to the right" is defunct.
Thats not exactly true. Certain cameras actually gain highlights as you go up in ISOs. For example. The blackmagic pocket Cinema camera 4k actually has more stops in the highlights as you go up in ISOs, then it resets when you hit the 2nd circuit of the dual native ISO
It’s not entirely untrue though. It certainly is true for most modern cameras.
People just need to remember that some cameras are ISO invariant and others are not.
Exposure to the right is not defunct at all, it's just that changing ISO has no effect on exposure. Exposure is a function of scene luminescence, aperture ratio, and shutter speed.
Dh1 is a crop and the 850 is FX. Prolly has a bigger effect on exposure l. Also did you use the same lens for all three shots ?
ISO is not an acronym, but do they have to shout? 📣🙉🤷♂️
I have tried with EOS R6. I set the adjusted the exposure for ISO3200 and then I took with ISO200. I pushed the ISO200 one 4 stops in Camera Raw and I would say pushed image is much more noisy and also dynamic range was less then ISO3200 one, especially in shadows. But in the other hand, the pushed one was still usable.
That video really intrigued me - glad you're following up, hows Puerto Rico living up for ya
Incredible so far
I really loved everything about this video. I think you should have a Mythbusting section in your channel. This is one of the myths I was wondering about and love seeing it put to the test using an old to a new pro camera body test. I also like that it got straight to the point some TH-camrs like to ramble on and go on tangents. Stick to the topic at hand and make a different video on your tangent.
Great job.
Tony was spot on in his video 🙂. And this video just made me think one of his pet peeves is when people say I. S. O. and not ISO haha
Yeah that drives me nuts. It's not an acronym!
Indeed. More precisely, according to Wikipedia:
>> ISO is not an acronym. The organization adopted ISO as its abbreviated name in reference to the Greek word isos (ίσος, meaning "equal")
But in the end, hearing it as being pronounced "I.S.O." here and there is really not a reason to go nuts ;-)
Go out for shooting, that's better for the health than to discuss endlessly the right pronounciation of the 3rd member of the exposure triangle. Oh wait, it's not even that; Ken W. would bash the sh** out of me if he read this technically false statement...
International Organization for Standardization?? I’ve thought this for years. And previous to that ASA was the American Standards Association..?
@@korm87 yes previously asa was used and that was an acronym. Iso is not an acronym though.
www.iso.org/about-us.html
Straight from the company's own website. They say it themselves the founders used the word iso taken from greek word isos meaning equal.
Jeezus you guys, talk about splitting hairs. The organization is in fact an acronym I.S.O... But in order to keep the rating acronym consistent across different countries, they came up with some silly excuse about the greek meaning of Isos... Again, literally just to make sure every country said their ACRONYM correctly.
Actually getting annoyed and correcting that level of minutia frankly makes you look dumber than just using the acronym everyone understands.
I checked p1000, and while shooting in complete darkness in raw I got exactly the same amount of noise and details in both iso100 and iso6400. I amplified brightness by 7 or 10 stops! I used a little amount of color denoising that has removed the color noise from iso100 phito, so the photos are looked completely identical. What was different is the level of black, so I adjusted it manually using the curve.
This is what photographers have become into. Arguing about nonsense. Very sad
Knowing how to handle ISO and knowing if we have a set standard of ISO or not is not nonsense
You are not even convinced of each other's explanations and arguing who is right or wrong. This type of info could be answered only by manufacturers. So this is all nonsense. Goodbye
Good video. Is there any NR used in this test? Will it give the same result when you use other raw converter (eg. Nikon Cap. NX, Cap. One)? And one more funny thing is that Nikon in camera raw converter suck badly.
Tony used Lightroom, you used Photoshop. LR has noise (and color noise) reduction sliders which if you have used them, then the image would have been exactly like the one taken from Nikon at ISO 3200. The camera simply applies some noise reduction techniques when shooting at an ISO higher than 100, in rest is just software gain.
Critical Point But does it apply noise reduction before writing the NEF file? I was always told raw files don’t have any noise reduction/sharpening/shadow recovery etc. -P
Critical Point - Then doesn't that prove his point, when treating both files the same way (meaning, not doing color noise reduction) doesn't that reflex that the files are not identical?
@@FStoppers Check out some of the forums on dpreview or photonstophotos, Nikon is known for baking in a level of noise reduction in blacks in the raw file itself.
Yes agree, I think RAW files are more pre baked. Its not RAW RAW without anything on it
Critical Point exactly! Different gain and noise reduction algorithms and calculations in camera vs software.
The amplification value of the chosen ISO is added before the digital conversion of the signal, and not afterwards, like changing the exposure value in Lightroom would. This decreases the noise in the image.
It's ISO, not ISO.
**puts on boxing gloves**
Its I.S.O. not eye so...its an abbreviation for International Standards Organization
@@bassangler73 its international organization for standardization. Iso is a 3 letter word the founders of the company used, which comes from the greek word isos, meaning equal. This information is all public knowledge and free for anyone who cares to take the time to go to the company's website and look for themselves. Or you could call them and hear them answer the phone amd see if they say i.s.o. or eye-so (spoiler alert, they will say eye-so). 🙂
Gemini is also pronounced "Geminee."
@@Triple070007 in what language?
@@Lionheart2323 www.reference.com/technology/iso-camera-4e486148d690dcb2
Just made a test on my canon T6. With iso 12800 and with 100. When trying to increase exposure with iso 100 the result was a garbage, onestly, there's a mechanical difference when shooting with higher iso, I do think that the sensors became more sensitive.
Oh here we go LOL
A high gain setting with a CMOS sensor results in lower readout noise, which I am sure accounts for the noisier low gain (ISO) image pushed in post.
and just to expand, readout noise is absolutely negligible under normal lighting conditions, only becoming apparent in low light
The reason the D1H and the D750/850 have different ISO performance is the D1H is APS-C.. Tony addressed this in his video.
Why would sensor size effect the iso number? Iso is suppose to be uniform across all cameras and sensor sizes.
@@FStoppers The only difference I see is that the DH1 uses a CCD sensor and the D750 & D850 use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors create high-quality, low-noise images. CMOS sensors, traditionally, are more susceptible to noise. That is because each pixel on a CMOS sensor has several transistors located next to it, the light sensitivity of a CMOS chip tends to be lower. CMOS sensors are just now improving to the point where they reach near parity with CCD devices in some applications. Maybe why the test was not identical and you had different noise levels.
@@ronyedin i agree. i've read CCDs give better and cleaner image quality when i was searching budget camera bodies for astrophotography. but it's not as efficient and cost-effective as the widely popular CMOS sensor so camera manufacturers moved away from it.
raizen82 but a cleaner file shouldn’t mean the ISO standard is suddenly different because it’s cmos or ccd! That’s like saying their should be a different rating of ISO for Ilford and Kodak films. A sensitivity rating is a sensitivity rating. -P
@@FStoppers that's why i think your first test already showed ISO isn't actually a standard but arbitrary both across sensor tech and company manufacturer or even within camera models from the same manufacturer
Even newer cameras apply analog gain to the sensor signal before running it through the ADC when you turn the camera ISO up. To a point, analog gain before ADC will result in a cleaner image as a significant amount of the noise you see comes from the ADC and a larger signal into the ADC is a cleaner conversion. The larger signal can be either more light, or more analog gain. More light is cleaner than more analog gain, but more analog gain is cleaner (by a lot) than gaining the signal up after the ADC (digital gain).
What the heck......Ive been making videos for years that ISO is not part of exposure . Who copied who
Cool story lady
You copied Tony angry photographer
Ah poor old jealous ken...
Go away...
@@Lionheart2323 facts are not stories, son.
yeah I'm aware of the underexposed boosting method since the first time I got a dslr, the camera must give a good dynamic range to do so, I think that this isnt possible with canon raw files, I assume you get more noise from the boosted low ISO image because of the high iso nr function, also when an image is over exposed its not possible to bring it back, it only works with under exposed images at low ISOs.
I think you misunderstood the concept of iso invariance, maybe talk to an engineer before you make these vids?
Uggg,....all image sensors are pre-amped when they are converted to digital. That conversion is set by the camera company to be whatever "ISO" they want their "0db" to equal. (some cameras have TWO "0db's"...low 0db and high 0db) and Remember...all raw sensor data is saved at "0db"....ONLY. There is NO USER ADJUSTABLE GAIN APPLIED TO THAT RAW COLLECTION. This only happens whee the raw data is assembled into a .jpg. The raw data ALWAYS stays at native "0db". If you add +12db to your .jpg, than a "+12db" FLAG is added to the raw metadata. It's only a FLAG given to your RAW reader to apply a default +12db on RAW assembly. The RAW data in the file still exists at "0db"...always. Gain is a destructive process and that's why it's NEVER calculated into RAW's 0db status. This is why raw has the highlight recovery ability that it does....because you CANNOT CLIP IT USING CAMERA GAIN LIKE YOU CAN A JPG!
It really varies with the camera body. I've owned both types of cameras and the ones that do not add gain at the chip level tend to have less noise at the higher isos.
'almost identical' either it's identical, or is not. :)
It's not identical. That much is clear.
@@jidrztgc318 but almost
Kids, nothing is "identical"...
@@jacquesvroom Thats not true. Things can be truely identical. For example, we know that each single electron has an identical electric charge. We know that there is no deviation at all. Same thing goes for quarks for example.
On that micro scale we also do have truely random things you wouldn't encounter in a macro scale.
@@jort93z Do those "identical" charges have "identical" locations? :)
That thing about those white dots is really important. I use an entry level DSLR and I have encountered huge problems with underexposing my images by mistake. Once when I underexposed my images a lot and brought them back in Lightroom some of the areas which were black turned completely white while editing. Lightroom just went crazy. If I underexpose by one stop it's fine but when I try to push it further the editing part gets tricky at times. ISO might not seem like a big deal after all, you just need to get it around the correct value but when it comes to us - entry level camera users or crop-sensor users in general the difference between setting the correct ISO might be huge.
To be fair to Tony. Nikon is not exaggerating but Fuji absolutely exaggerates their claims
Great video! I subscribe to both Tony Northrup's, as well as your youtube channel. Your calm demeanor, and civility are greatly appreciated! Thanks again for a great objective, unbiased, rant free video!
ISO is not an acronym. It is a 3 letter word. 🙂
No its an abbreviation for International Standards Organization
@@bassangler73 ugh. There is no international standards organization. It is the international organization for standardization. And they say directly on their website, and if you want to call them and talk to them yourself, they will tell you it is no abbreviation. For the simple fact that the acronym would change in different languages. IOS if it is in english. And different orders in different languages. So the founders decided to use the 3 letter word ISO, which comes from the greek word isos, meaning equal. And in all of the company's videos, they themselves, pronounce it eye-so. Which again, you can check for yourself if you cared to do some research. 🙂
@@Lionheart2323 www.reference.com/technology/iso-camera-4e486148d690dcb2
@@bassangler73 www.iso.org/about-us.html
They say it themselves. On their own website. Iso is not an acronym or abbreviation. Iso is a 3 letter word the founders used which comes from the greek word isos which means equal. The company says it themselves. Directly on their own website. Not some reference website. Their own website. There is no international standards organization. It is the international organization for standardization. And again. If you wanted to hear them directly, just call the company yourself and see how they answer their own phones. I will tell you what you wont hear them say. You wont hear them say I.S.O.
@@bassangler73 Wrong. It's a word.
Keep in mind that the software processing between light room and the in camera processor is different and results may vary. You could try Capture One or Affinity and still see difference in the way noise is processed. They are close and this means the camera is "Iso Invariant". Try the same on a Canon 5D mkIV and the results between the files would be huge, because Canon is not really ISO invariant. The most ISO Invariant camera to my knowledge is the Olympus EM5MKII
ISO getting better , that’s why 750 and 850 said over exposed. ISO has no universal standard.
ISO is a international Standard.
yes and no. YES ISO sensitivity is getting better as technology advances. NO because he compared a DX sensor to a Full Frame that is why there is a 1 stop difference. Bigger sensor gathers more light. he was testing ISO not exposure that is why Lee did not bother to properly expose the D750 and D850. he stayed at 1/30th of a second on all test. watch 2:03
@@Dylon1981 bigger sensor does not gather more light. Take a light meter and meter a scene. There is no setting for sensor size. Higher pixel pitch affects light gathering resulting in less noise, not different exposure. Crop sensor takes the same image as full frame, only cropped. If you take a crop sensor camera and full frame with the same pixel pitch, exposure will be the same. Crop the full frame image to the crop sensor image, size it to the crop sensor image and the amount of noise is the same.
If I remember correctly, there is by default some DNR (Digital Noise Reduction) for high ISO, which can be a problem for astrophotgraphy, and you can disable that in the setting. It would be interesting to see if with that particular setting disabled the pushed file grain looks same as the one shot at ISO 3200.
The difference you found is actually the process of of raw processing the "High ISO set" image to shift the "Chromatic Noise" to "Luminance Noise" which is more pleasing to a photographer because it looks more acceptable and filmic the "silver hallide clumping" yumminess of film grain is not always bad. It's also a way of mitigating huge file size as the resulting colour noise would make the file incredibly huge the colour averaging of the noise make it more manageable to save.
this proof what i always thought, there are certen numers of steps that in the camera when u change the iso it really change something related to the sensitivity of the sensor, but in the steps u start seeing the noise is when the camera just postprocess and just push up the raw file. Thats why if my camera starts making noise at 6400iso for example i just shoot in that iso maximun or one step back and if i need to add more light i do it by software in computer i think this prevents crazy colors coming up.
Very interesting. This just changed my whole world on ISO. Now for some testing on my end with Fuji.
For the second test one other thing that might be going on is that the default noise reduction settings of the raw file is different at different ISO settings. You could possibly get a more identical result by tweaking noise reduction parameters, not just only the exposure.
i like this video. I use lightroom too, i was thinking maybe try capture one and see if the artifacting is still there. i was thinking the iso boost may be higher quality over lr if that makes sense and maybe capture one would eliminate that bottleneck
Same comment I made on Tony’s. Since ISO is gain you can not isolate the result from signal to noise. It can vary greatly, just as in audio equipment with the quality of the amplification (hardware) and the case of the digital the, software.
I started using fstoppers to find the best hashtags for Instagram. They're always informative and helpful.
In video this is a bit more known because videocamera’s often use gain measured in decibels. Alister Chapman had some interesting content about that. In the end, amplifying the signal on the sensor level will probably always be better then in post but the difference is small. RED camera’s even use ISO/gain as a metadata setting, you can set the iso in post!
Increasing the iso in camera boost's the analogue signal before it has been digitised and processed, so it will be better.
This might work as you've shown with more modern Canon/higher model number Canon gear, but it looks like crap when I tried this with my EOS 80D, lots of yucky banding, didn't even bother looking up close for noise but sure it was there too. What I'd like to know is how "Picture Styles" affect the RAW file? Pretty sure I get a different RAW if I use Cinestyle picture style on my Canon Vs Neutral picture style. Also "exposing to the right" using different picture styles results in a different exposure using the in-camera histogram to expose. Does picture style affect RAW? Which Picture style gives the cleanest, highest dynamic range in RAW, do certain picture styles break down at higher ISOs more than others? Questions, questions!
I am so happy to see a very respectable way of challenging another's claim. I saw Tony's video and was very surprised when I learned ISO in digital cameras. I felt as though I was taken advantage of due to the fact that my decision to get a D810 was based on a couple of things, one of which was the base ISO of 64 . But over time I believe one learns what works with their camera and that any claims are meaningless.. Anyway, Kudos for the respect given, it comes back to you! at least with me..
Just a thought. I wonder if there is a distinction between electronic noise generated by internal components of the camera. For instance with long exposures and sensors heating up. Or digital Artifacting taking place due to in sufficient sensor data, ie clipping. Thus algorithms simply fill that void with something. Also this may suggest that perfect parity is not achievable and electronics do not behave in a linear fashion with regards to signal to noise ratios.
Thanks for doing this test so I didn't have to do it myself. I was going to after watching his video and I'm super happy you were willing to.
About iso 3200, the camera processor might applied some noise reduction so it seemed cleaner, i wonder how things would turn out if you add noise reduction to thee 100iso as well.
For any given camera, ISO is metadata-only (so doesn't matter if you change it in camera or in post - also called "ISO invariant") for a given range or set of ranges - usually above a certain ISO. For example the 5D MarkIV is ISO invariant between ISO400 and anything above - but below that it is NOT invariant. the 5D Mark II was not ISO invariant until, if I recall correctly, well above ISO 1600. Red cameras are purely ISO invariant, as is the Arri Raw codec. You have to look up the model of camera you are using to find out the range or ranges of ISO invariance to know. Testing one camera only tells you about that one model, and even then you would have to test all ISOs to find the range(s) of invariance.
read about bios voltage of photodiodes, camera sensor is kind of matrix of photodiodes, changing iso is related to chaning bias voltage
@fstoppers Did you turn off noise reduction on the Nikon 850 when you did this comparison between iso 100 and 3200 pics? Obviously that would skew your comparison.
I saw the ISO issue in an Angry photographer video... A long time ago. Thanks everyone here for the photon-level explanations.
This could be depending on sensor.
It might work on Sony sensors, but not for Canon.
It also depends on what is done to create the raw file, which is different per manufacturer.
(Nikon raw differs from Sony raw of the same sensor)
I responded to a comment below and I am going to express here again for anyone else interested in knowing in simple words why in digital cameras ISO setting is not equivalent to changing the exposure in post, although for some of the newer sensors the visible difference is small (i.e. D850). The signal flows at it follows: signal collection-> signal amplification (camera hardware ISO setting)->Analog to Digital conversion-> write to file-> edit and possibly signal amplification in raw editing software. Because the camera sets the iso amplification BEFORE reaching the AD conversion, there are 2 factors: 1) any noise picked up BETWEEN the amplifier and A/D converter is not amplified, but it will be if you boost the exposure in post, this is actually the major visible impact (more noise in the image) this can be a dramatic difference for non "ISO-invariant" sensors, 2) the A/D converter is used more effectively with hardware iso (in camera ISO setting) because the signal is not compressed in the low levels before A/D conversion, otherwise leaving the majority of the available higher levels empty (if you look at the very dark image histogram before getting boosted you will notice that it is dramatically shifted to the left leaving the majority of it empty). So , even if you have a 14bit A/D conversion, you are effectively using a lot fewer bits, maybe even only 8 bits, if you are underexposing a lot, making your image far more prone to quantization. I believe that is the reason of the artifacts noticed in the very dark areas in the video (6:15), it is like trying to get the details of clouds when they are almost white, because only very few discrete levels are describing the gradation, you start noticing artifacts due to quantization.
I haven't made a full test, but the Canon EOS 77D does usually expose slightly longer than my EOS 700D at the same ISO and aperture.
The 77D definitly has a much better sensor but the fundamentally differ in the way that they expose. I think the noise level of them is pretty similar, but the sensor cut off for high brightness levels differ wildly. The 77D has so much more detail in the bright areas but similar detail in dark areas, when exposed with same aperture and shuter speed.
Check out your D850 settings for high ISO noise reduction, it’s usually on by default, and it essentially takes two photos one with the shutter open and one with the shutter closed to work out what the random noise pattern will be, and subtracts some noise from the output. I still prefer to shoot my D750 at ISO 100 for pretty much everything as it protects the highlights, and up to 3-4 stops of gain I really can’t see any difference in noise.
Does a digital sensor change sensitivity over time? Testing a 15 year old camera to a current camera may yield different results? Just a thought. And for the record, film was often not truly as fast as it was rated.
Hey guys, curious to know if pushing the exposure up with in-camera processing (from the Playback menu) would yield a closer-to-equal result. I would assume the way the camera processes exposure increases is different than lightroom. Not all exposure increases are created equal (lightroom, for example, does a WAY BETTER job than the old ViewNX 2 software).
i believe that the D1 used a different metering system where the metering was in the prism as it was based on the F5 which is why you can change metering modes on top of the prism?
Very good addon video, wish that someday there would be a frotalk gathering with fstoppers, tony& Chelsea and may be Ken Rockwell too. It would be fun to see you all together
I have watched Tony video also and I have checked DxOmark sensor database. I have found that actual ISO sensitivity of most of the cameras lays below ideal ISO line. It is only question how far.
Great video. Subscribed. I like people keeping Tony honest. I never know if he's speaking from experience or out the side of his backside. I did NOT think ISO settings mean nothing and you can fix it all in post. We need mythbusters like you to keep the tonys on the beam.
I think this is an appropriate way to test the merits of what Tony was talking about. So many people are quick to try and bust someones balls on TH-cam instead of dealing with it tactfully. I think the big picture is that ISO is not standardized and kind of manipulated to sell cameras. I see this tactic in scientific instruments specs in the field I work in all the time. A new product will boast xyz sensitivities at the factory to match the competition, but that spec is bogus once you install it in the real world or will only hold that spec for a year or so due to age. Kudos to you for not being a simple troll. I don't plan on underexposing my shots by 5 stops, but I see Tony's point.
Try it with an older sensor camera like a 5D or 5D mk2, and you'll be surprised again. Even at 2 stops under-exposed, you'll find that there is significantly more noise in the shadows, if not overall. the D850 is a new camera that possibly uses a different process from the sensor. Technology does change, right?
This like Tony's is a very good video. All manufacturres will vary somewhat by hardware, firmware and software. I think you guys have proved each other right.
I like Tony's "need to know" side and your simple tst side but they don't disagree - point is proven, high end Nikon is arguably the best, perhaps handles 3 stops in camera, you hadd 5; difference 2, the noise looks like amplified gain noise.
Thanks again.
There are different light gain between Dx n fx format . Fx have more light hit to sensor