@@ziginox Yeah -I have nikon versions d70, d700 and D750 and they don't exhibit it in any range I'd be likely to use at all anyway... Generally speaking I prefer to screw up my images with poor focus and not have to rely on the firmware/chip to disappoint me.
I knew about certain ISO settings being cleaner, especially at full stop settings like 100, 400, but I didn’t realize that it was significantly different at lower ISOs for my camera. Also, this and the ISO is fake video really explains the methods you did in the “ISO doesn’t cause noise” video, which confused me and a ton of other people when you would raise the exposure to match the pictures in Lightroom. Watching these videos ahead of time would have made it make so much more sense. Glad to know that my camera is much noisier at 200 than 400, now! Thanks for these videos!
Tony, I've read and viewed, including photo samples, a fair amount on ISO invariance. Yet your illustration is quite the most lucid exposition I've found.
Keep doing technical, as most other otherwise knowledgeable YT channel providers often get the technical details wrong, while you are almost always correct. Thanks.
I love these videos, especially when people talk crap on other channels instead of digging into what was discussed. Fstoppers was probably the best/most fair. Well deserved victory lap! All kidding aside these videos are really what breaks your channel away from all the others. Would love to see more of these kinds of videos with one to one comparisons. And my second fav are the videos where you two are drinking and answering questions. Chelsea is a hoot!
@@andyhenderson8757 How could that be sarcasm? I mean, Tony did actually seem at ease about the whole issue and the challengers to his assertions in the first vid. Score another one for Tony. :-)
Going for a higher iso does give you slightly less dynamic range. So it becomes a noise vs range battle. What do you guys prefer? Less noise, less dynamic range. Or more noise, but better dynamic range?
Finally, TH-cam guessed right about what video I wanted to watch next. This is exactly the video that I was hoping to see after watching your old video about ISO being fake. Sometimes it's your old, "evergreen" "nerdy" content that i appreciate the most.
This is the kind of stuff Thom Hogan is testing in his books (on Nikon cameras), which can be pretty useful if you want to get a better understanding of how your specific camera works, and how to capture optimal data. Tony is doing a great job at explaining all of this. Honestly, I think Tony is at his best when he gets to explain to a general audience something that's very technical and geeky. A lot of times, I feel like I already have a very good understanding of what he talks about, but it's always good to see how he explains it, which can make the topic even more intuitive. Great job Tony!
Tony - Thank you so much for this. I have the “ISO Setting/Read Noise” numerical table downloaded for my Sony A7riii to my phone for quick reference (until I get it memorized). Really enjoyed this discussion. This will give me a great deal of flexibility when shooting in different light conditions. For instance, when the sun is going down and I’m at ISO 500 but my shutter speed is not quite enough to stop the action that I want stopped; now I can jump to 1600, have slightly better quality, and move up the shutter speed to get the stop motion image I want (assuming that I have the depth of field that I desire). Options are good, I used to think that ISO had a linear relationship, now this opens up so many more options for clarity & creativity!!! Noise for my Sony A7riii: 160 = 640 200 = 800 250 = 1000 500 > 1600
I think this is a great topic. I’m also a computer professional and a bit of a geek... and I have been into a couple online spars with those who are rigid about ISO and it’s effects. The fear is about grainy photos and high iso... folks thinking ‘just lower the iso and it lowers the grain’. This shows that there’s a lot more to it than that and it depends on each digital camera.
Photons to Photos proved that for the Fuji XT3 best iso to use is : From ISO 160 until 320 The noise increase slightly but after 320 the noise is worst than ISO 800. So it's good to avoid any numbers between iso 320 and 800. From 800 to 1250 iso noise is similar. So your usable iso's will be 160 until 320 or 800 until 1250 and over that the noise always increasing. I did test my camera and that was true,couldn't believe it
Tony, It was very nice. This is a video for the ones curious about the machine. Its not intende to impact ones photography. So, haters, please refrain and let us, who are interested in the inner workings of the machine enjoy it.
I don't think testing with an actual image is a good idea. Digital cameras are not as digital as you would think. First in the chain is the sensor. The sensor outputs an analog voltage for each and every pixel. Following the sensor is a variable gain amplifier, this is the device that controls the effective ISO. Then there is an analog to digital converter. The best measurement would be to choose a shutter speed. Cover the lens completely so that no light enters. Record a raw frame for each available ISO setting. Then, for comparison sake, sum the values of all the pixels for each of the frames. What you are looking at is the dark noise from the system. If you graphed this data, you would probably see the curve go very slowly at first, because many of the values coming from the sensor and amplified by the variable gain amplifier are below the sensitivity of the analog to digital converter. At some ISO point, the amplifier amplifies the noise enough that the A/D is able to sense it, then it should rise at a predictable linear rate. This would be the true way to determine the noise floor of the camera. Changing ISO does nothing to increase noise, it simply magnifies the noise created in the sensor, of course it also amplifies the image at the same rate. So all image to noise ratio is created in the sensor at the time of exposure regardless of the ISO setting.
So here’s a question. Say I’m shooting a small event, and I want to stay in Aperture Priority so I can be fast paced. If I’m in auto iso, what should I set the min maximum at? If there’s a huge difference on the a7iii between just iso-500 vs 640, and I set the minimum to 640, I miss the opportunity to set the minimum to iso-100 for situations where there’s enough light. If I set the maximum iso too low, now I have to worry about the camera forcing the shutter speed too low.
So for someone (using Sony A7iii) that doesn't want to have to push ISO a huge amount in post (lots of extra time involved), the best way to work is that if I can't shoot at base ISO of 100, I should go straight to 640 rather than bothering with anything between the 200 and 500 range?
ISO is not fake . It is a standard. Some cameras are fake yes. But not all. People must learn to read the light in candels and lux. And use a professional light reader like Sekonic.
This is HUGELY practical. I remember when I was first getting started in photography, I was shooting an amateur fight event in a place with horrible lighting. The action was fast so I needed my shutter speed up. But I couldn't go too far up because it would just be pure black. As a result I had some underexposed blurry action shots. The only ones that looked half way decent were the guys before they threw a kick or a punch, not during the action itself. Had I known that I could shoot like that and then just push my exposure in post, I would've had so many more usable shots.
but the whole point of this was, that it (usually) does not matter if you increase iso or do it in post. So during your events you could have just upped your iso... doing it in post would have no benefit
@@MsIrrealis Yeah, I'm saying I didn't understand this and why having this knowledge is so practical. I was under the false assumption that ISO at shoot time vs boosting it in post were different. And as a result I had blurry images, had I known better I would've prioritized the shutter speed more.
I've not done any of the tests but have started to employ ETTR to good effect. I shot some pics at 6400 ISO and the images had hardly any noise - not exactly what you are talking about, but my point here is to expose correctly - as far to the right as you can - and what happens is you reduce the S/N ratio and thus noise in the darks. Shooting on a Canon 6D. Comparing these results to shooting at 100 ISO but underexposed and getting bags of noise all over the image. Metre right and push to the right.
Having an A7III, you directly showed where my camera is ISO invariant. That's why after seeing Dave McKeegan's video on the topic too, I started ignoring ISO 500 entirely and sometimes even ISO 400 in the name of shutter speed. It's not often I'm even at this ISOs in the first place (usually at 100 or past 800), but it's helpful to know.
Tony, you are on to an amazing topic that so many people totatly mis understand. Can we all stop saying "ISO" and just call it what is REALLY is...."gain". Also, the term "exposure" only applies to shutter speed and aperture. "ISO/Gain" happen AFTER exposure is COMPLETED. What are we exposing image sensors to? LIGHT! Gain is NOT light. If your photosite is 50% full, 1 million "ISO" will not change that photosite's 1/2 full status!
Ok so, let me clarify (& correct me if I'm wrong) ... For the Sony a7 III, if I have to correctly expose a photo by setting the ISO to 503, then I could just shoot at ISO 100 and raise the exposure in post. This will result in about the same amount of noise. Similarly, an image that needs proper exposure higher than ISO 640 can just be shot at ISO 640 and just be adjusted in post to get the same noise level. Is that right? That's why in minute 10:35, the noise is different because ISO 51,200 is only similar down to ISO 640 whereas ISO 100 can only be stretched out to ISO 503. That is also why these other youtube camera reviewers are getting different noise levels due to this "dual gain." The other reason being that their camera may not be truly ISO Invariant. Did I understand that correctly?
Tony, if I understand this correctly, and my main concern is noise, I should avoid ISOs 200 to 399 and jump to ISO 400 on the Nikon D850. Why is the Canon 5D Mark III so jagged? What does graph for the Canon 5D Mark III says about Canon's ISO?
Don’t worry about your haters. Those F stopper guys are a bit smug with their content delivery and you’ve always contributed value to the photography world.
So if it is too dark to use base ISO. It is better to underexpose, so the histogram should be on the left. You don't risk to loose any information about the highlights and you know you can raise shadows without loosing anything too. Different thing if there is enough light to use base ISO. In that case it could be better to expose to the right, to have lower noise in the shadows.
Great video. Thank you. What's the deal with iso 640 on the a7iii? I thought you start at 100 and double the number, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc etc. So should I be using 640 instead of 400 or 800? A little confused
I love these videos tony, and I have been sticking with my D750's for so long mainly because I can shoot everything at ISO 100 (single band native ISO) and adjust gain in post, able to recover ridiculous highlights and create incredible dynamic range in single shots. Doing this in situations where HDR isnt possible (moving subjects, events, weddings) gives a unique look that clients want to pay for. A feature that should be touted on new cameras much much more.
I can't count the number of times I shot a 3-frame AE-bracketed set of a high-contrast scene with my D750 to HDR-merge later, and ended up deleting all but the "underexposed" frame because it ended up looking just as good as the 16-bit HDR merged TIFF after pushing the shadows. I never expected that when I bought it, and I've always loved that about that camera because it's so useful. I agree this should be a better-known feature because for all the talk of "ISO-less cameras" it's clear this is far from universal, and a great many consumers wouldn't even realise the significance of this very technical-sounding metric.
TOTALLY WORTHWHILE! Just like knowing how a clutch/shift works on your car, allows you to drive it better. Knowing some of the things you revealed (some things I had no idea about!) certainly helps. At least those of us that don't live in AUTO world. Thanks.
the sweet spot on my EOS 2000D is around 1630 (indicated) ISO, I usually shoot at 400 so might be time for me to start to really play with my shutter speed and aperture settings...
I never leave comments on TH-cam, but this video is so good that I had to tell you! These technical videos are my favorite, might be because I’m an engineer :D
Thanks for the follow-up video Tony! One question tho, does that works the say way when shooting video? Meaning using ISO 640 rather than 500 for lower noise??
I love these. As a kid, few of my toys remains in one piece long. Some of them returned to their retail glory, but many were learning experiences, or hangar queens.
Maybe it is time to change our vocabulary. For instance, new light emitting diode (LED) light bulbs now lists Lumens and their Watts equivalent. Lumen is the actual measure of light (that is produced by the bulb) but there needs to be a translation to the Watts-equivalent that we are all used to for incandescent bulbs. So maybe we need to learn new terms like signal-to-noise ratio and signal gain, while also showing the equivalent in photographer-speak, like stops of noise and ISO (respectively). It reflects the actual physics of semiconductor sensors, while also bridging to the 100 year old nomenclature created in the chemistry-based film days. As we transition to using both sets of vocabularies, it will become more comfortable, and also make more sense. Thanks for these and other videos, Tony and Chelsea.
Are 12 bit cameras and 14 bit cameras directly comparable? My 90D appears to have more noise than my old 1000D within the common ISO range, according to Photons to Photos
Tony, if I check for the D7500, i see a drop at ISO400 (at a lower point than ISO200), would it be safe to say that after ISO100, ISO400 is better to use than ISO200? And after this, is it better to underexpose than overexposed? What would provide most detail? Seems we can easily bump up a stop. But clipping highlights is losing detail.
Good video Tony. That website is very useful. It might be an idea to do a video on dynamic range tradeoff using the same website. I could imagine some people noticing the big drop at say, 800 iso for noise on a dual gain sensor, and deciding to use that as their "base iso" without factoring in dynamic range.
Why did you not try the other cameras from their drop off point? I own a t-t2 and happen to know that the drop related to dual gain lays around iso 800, so is you compared between 800 and 12800 or something the difference would have been minimal.
I like the way the BMPCC4k handled the chart in their manual, it shows the same chart but with the exposure limits and illustrates that changing iso mainly changes the midpoint (within the dual gain extents)
When it comes to the technical side of cameras and photography, it just doesn't get any better than Tony.... on TH-cam. There may be folks who have even more information but they don't have TH-cam channels. FStoppers... please.
If you have such camera, you can shoot on much faster speeds in A mode for example. What I mean - If you compensate -3 stops in A and shoot moving objects you will receive 3 stops faster shutter and much better chance to have a picture without motion blur. This can be a difference, between unusable and usable photo.
5D Mark IV I hear is pretty much ISO 400 and above. Have you tested it? The thing I didn't hear you address though is, when you adjust the ISO in camera it adjust it before you hit the analog digital converter and if you do it this way, it came out of the converter on whatever ISO you had the camera on, some people were saying that caused artifacts. I don't know, haven't tested it.
In your last video, you did not just "hint at". You made a categorical statement that changing the ISO setting in my camera to increase the (apparent) exposure in my camera is exactly like moving the slider in Lightroom. There was no hedging. It's good that you're correcting things now, but don't pretend that you didn't say what you said.
Hey. So Sony a7sii has a native ISO of 1600. If I want to shoot 4k 25 in a relatively bright scenario at 5.6 f-stop, do I have any alternative except an ND filter?
I´ve tried to compare ISO 320 and 400 (where should be the jump) on my D7500 and couldn´t see any difference. Any ideas what should I shoot to I could see it? Thank you
@Tony Can you explain why one would see negative values on the Photons to Photos Charts ? Example: Pull up the D3200 on the Read Noise in DNs vs ISO setting chart and at 100 and 200 ISO, it seems the values are negative ? Not quite sure how to interpret that. Thanks
I have watched the videos on this topic and this is still not clear to me. I understand that the lowest native ISO will lead to the least amount of noise all other things being equal within the same camera. But it seems that any manufacturer could arbitrarily say that their lowest ISO was 64 or 100 or whatever. So if the exposure was exactly the same, and was shot with a Nikon at 64 ISO vs a Sony at 100 ISO - would there really be less noise? Has this ever been tested? Is there something special about the Nikons' sensor or optics that is different that the other manufactures? Please help.
This is very interesting info!. I'm learning my new Panasonic gh5 and wondering how does ISO effect my camera when recording video? Is it the same as when shooting pictures or does it use a different gain system for video? I'm used to my Canon XA10 video camera which is easier to understand as i knew anything above around an 8db gain setting would create visable noise.
Looking at the Read Noise graph for the a7iii, does ISO50 produce (ever so slightly) less noise than ISO100? Even though it's an 'extended' ISO and not base? And - more interestingly - does ISO640 produce less noise than ISO400, and even ISO200?
Good job. You are learning. Astronomers have known this for years. Look up photon to electron exchange. The camera counts electrons, not photons. Yes, photon kick of the electrons that are counted. When you turn the ISO up the number of photons to electron ratio is read differently. So when you have a low photon to electron ratio you have the limit to how high the ISO should be set. One photon to one electron counted.
Just curious if you checked to see if the cameras change the excitation voltage on the sensor. It is my understanding that being able to precisely control the excitation voltage (gain) is what made the digital camera possible. My guess is that there was testing where they found what you did where manipulating the ISO with software and stepping the excitation voltage to sweet spots made more sense.
I would be interested regarding low light sensor cameras A7s and GH5s. Both have only about the half Megapixel. Are they better noise reduction or do i get the same result resize the non low light model down?
Followed what you said Tony with test on my A7iii all comes out just as you said even the drop off between 640 and 500, But what I dont get is after a few more tests using the same Tamron 28-75 at 75mm if I take 1 shot at iso 8000 at 2.8 1/640sec correct exposure its clean use same iso 8000 at 2.8 with 1/8000th sec and match the total exposure is full of noise am I missing something here? Anyone. Should this not give equal results?
Would it be possible to use this to create a "real" HDR photo. Duplicate the photo multiple times and change the exposure on each one. Then combine the photos into an HDR image. Would be be as good as taking HDR from your camera?
Lol. Totally useless information but I enjoyed every minute of it. Nice job on not showing hate towards your critics. I find it healthy to have a civil discussion on these things. Many folks are unable to do that.
So, based on your first video on this topic, I did a test. I live in Cleveland, and we have a magnificent art museum that is free. I've photographed many of the statues in there before, oftentimes trying to get the slowest shutter speed I could without camera shake (Sony's IBIS helps a lot). These made for a useful subject of comparison. THIS TIME, I went in and purposefully underexposed most of my images by about two stops, which made getting photos without shake a relative breeze (again, thanks IBIS). On my older camera, an A7II, this would have resulted in an amount of noise I wasn't happy with. Of course, I knew the A7RIII's sensor would be better (that's why I spent the money to upgrade), but I was really shocked by the results I was able to get by pushing the exposure in Capture One in post. I also took some shots at higher ISOs which were "properly" exposed, and the amount of noise was virtually indistinguishable. In situations where I'm shooting something I HAVEN'T already done several times before, I will try to get closer exposure, as both version had SOME noise (though much much more manageable than before), but it's nice to know now that when I'm in a pinch, I now have a little more latitude in using a faster shutter speed and underexposing than I thought I did. So thanks for inspiring me to do some more experimenting with my gear. Hopefully, I'll have less blurred shots in the future to show for it.
On this chart, are cross-sensor-size and cross-resolution comparisons meaningful? I ask because when I pull up the charts for the 5D (any one other than the first Canon 5D) it shows more noise than the X-T2.
In the notes below the chart it says: "These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area."
I own a a73, the noise difference between image at ISO 640 and ISO 500 simply blow me away. Dual Gain stuff is new to me and will be thing to consider. Thanks Tony..
Crazy! I actually noticed more noise in an image from a shoot with 400 ISO than one with ISO 800 on my A7iii a few days ago and was wondering why. Now I know
Didn't know about the noise graphs. Raises a question about auto ISO. I often shoot with manual exposure time and aperture and with auto ISO. (Actually a Sony a7rm3.) Does anyone know if it is smart enough to let the ISO go up to 630 (or whatever the base ISO is) as long as there is no resulting over-exposure? I have noted that it quite often sets the ISO to 640, but don't know if it avoids 300-500 if it can without over-exposing.
![สาวเมืองเพชร - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kEt7F9PvO3I/mqdefault.jpg)
I SO confused ~
🤣🤣🤣🤣
😂
😂I see what you did there
Rim shot! 😄
well played Karen, well played...
Tony is trolling all his critics.
shamelessly ! haha...
I’m actually really enjoying these technical videos. 👍🏿
Same here, I prefer a more tech focus to things.
Me too! Totally!!
Me too, Tony is the best when it comes to camera related stuff! :)
Yeah, we need series called Tony's Tech Tuesday/Thursdays.
Totally agree! I am checking this channel every single day, hoping to see a new tech vid, I wish there would be a new tech vid daily...
Never try to out-geek a committed geek. Thanks, Tony. Your turn, @Fstoppers!
They should keep trying so that we get more of these awesome videos! :)
You should make more videos like these, talking about the more technical stuff
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I follow Tony like he's the New York Yankees in these TH-cam photography controversies. They throw everything at him and he bats it away.
@jp Mariners could make him look silly?
@@JoeMaranophotography "No one cares about Micro 4 loser thirds"- Camera Conspiracies
@@JoeMaranophotography Says the guy with Lumix all over his content.
Joe Marano eeehhhhhhhh.......oooooooookkkkkkaaaaayyyyy.
As of today, he's more like the LA Dodgers and just keeps smacking homers.
That was actually very interesting! After 7 years doing photography, I didn't know about this "ISO drop gap" ! Thank you !
I didn't know about it after 52 years! :-)
The lesson to learn here is to light your shot and not get confused by all the '
experts'
Julien, the dual-gain ISO is a relatively recent development.
I am pretty sure none of us actually did 😂😂
@@ziginox Yeah -I have nikon versions d70, d700 and D750 and they don't exhibit it in any range I'd be likely to use at all anyway... Generally speaking I prefer to screw up my images with poor focus and not have to rely on the firmware/chip to disappoint me.
Every time he said "ENHANCE!", I expected him to solve a murder mystery.
I knew about certain ISO settings being cleaner, especially at full stop settings like 100, 400, but I didn’t realize that it was significantly different at lower ISOs for my camera. Also, this and the ISO is fake video really explains the methods you did in the “ISO doesn’t cause noise” video, which confused me and a ton of other people when you would raise the exposure to match the pictures in Lightroom. Watching these videos ahead of time would have made it make so much more sense.
Glad to know that my camera is much noisier at 200 than 400, now! Thanks for these videos!
Tony, I've read and viewed, including photo samples, a fair amount on ISO invariance. Yet your illustration is quite the most lucid exposition I've found.
I hope, for my sake, English is your first language
Keep doing technical, as most other otherwise knowledgeable YT channel providers often get the technical details wrong, while you are almost always correct. Thanks.
I love these videos, especially when people talk crap on other channels instead of digging into what was discussed. Fstoppers was probably the best/most fair. Well deserved victory lap! All kidding aside these videos are really what breaks your channel away from all the others. Would love to see more of these kinds of videos with one to one comparisons. And my second fav are the videos where you two are drinking and answering questions. Chelsea is a hoot!
Tony, I love how unaffected by critics you seem. You don't seem to take things personally. It's really refreshing.
Not sure if sarcasm or........
Andrew Henderson not sarcasm.
@@andyhenderson8757 How could that be sarcasm? I mean, Tony did actually seem at ease about the whole issue and the challengers to his assertions in the first vid.
Score another one for Tony. :-)
Wow! Those signal to noise drops are REALLY interesting!
Going for a higher iso does give you slightly less dynamic range. So it becomes a noise vs range battle. What do you guys prefer? Less noise, less dynamic range. Or more noise, but better dynamic range?
Finally, TH-cam guessed right about what video I wanted to watch next. This is exactly the video that I was hoping to see after watching your old video about ISO being fake. Sometimes it's your old, "evergreen" "nerdy" content that i appreciate the most.
This is the kind of stuff Thom Hogan is testing in his books (on Nikon cameras), which can be pretty useful if you want to get a better understanding of how your specific camera works, and how to capture optimal data. Tony is doing a great job at explaining all of this. Honestly, I think Tony is at his best when he gets to explain to a general audience something that's very technical and geeky. A lot of times, I feel like I already have a very good understanding of what he talks about, but it's always good to see how he explains it, which can make the topic even more intuitive. Great job Tony!
Tony - Thank you so much for this. I have the “ISO Setting/Read Noise” numerical table downloaded for my Sony A7riii to my phone for quick reference (until I get it memorized). Really enjoyed this discussion. This will give me a great deal of flexibility when shooting in different light conditions.
For instance, when the sun is going down and I’m at ISO 500 but my shutter speed is not quite enough to stop the action that I want stopped; now I can jump to 1600, have slightly better quality, and move up the shutter speed to get the stop motion image I want (assuming that I have the depth of field that I desire).
Options are good, I used to think that ISO had a linear relationship, now this opens up so many more options for clarity & creativity!!!
Noise for my Sony A7riii:
160 = 640
200 = 800
250 = 1000
500 > 1600
“They did a really...good job of it.”
Just say what you’re feeling Tony, I heard that microscopic pause 😂
Battle of the egos..
Well, you call this "manners" or even civilized behaviour.
😂😂😂
I think this is a great topic. I’m also a computer professional and a bit of a geek... and I have been into a couple online spars with those who are rigid about ISO and it’s effects. The fear is about grainy photos and high iso... folks thinking ‘just lower the iso and it lowers the grain’. This shows that there’s a lot more to it than that and it depends on each digital camera.
Photons to Photos proved that for the Fuji XT3 best iso to use is :
From ISO 160 until 320 The noise increase slightly but after 320 the noise is worst than ISO 800. So it's good to avoid any numbers between iso 320 and 800. From 800 to 1250 iso noise is similar.
So your usable iso's will be 160 until 320 or 800 until 1250 and over that the noise always increasing. I did test my camera and that was true,couldn't believe it
Tony, ignore the haters, I love technical videos. And many more people love them. Keep them up :D
Honesty is your greatest strength. Please keep citing sources and explaining what you know v what you think. Your are a rare guy.
Nice job Tony! You tackled the issue very well, and I’m now obsessed with geeking out over those iso charts
I love when you make these videos! I learn something and the comments that people leave you are comedic relief lol
LOL. Right? LOL.
Tony, It was very nice. This is a video for the ones curious about the machine. Its not intende to impact ones photography. So, haters, please refrain and let us, who are interested in the inner workings of the machine enjoy it.
Fan boy alert
I certainly intend for ISO invariance to affect my photography-by expanding my dynamic range up to some 6 stops.
Digital camera's have been on the market since 1997 or so , yet in all these years they still haven't fixed the iso issue .
I don't think testing with an actual image is a good idea. Digital cameras are not as digital as you would think. First in the chain is the sensor. The sensor outputs an analog voltage for each and every pixel. Following the sensor is a variable gain amplifier, this is the device that controls the effective ISO. Then there is an analog to digital converter. The best measurement would be to choose a shutter speed. Cover the lens completely so that no light enters. Record a raw frame for each available ISO setting. Then, for comparison sake, sum the values of all the pixels for each of the frames. What you are looking at is the dark noise from the system. If you graphed this data, you would probably see the curve go very slowly at first, because many of the values coming from the sensor and amplified by the variable gain amplifier are below the sensitivity of the analog to digital converter. At some ISO point, the amplifier amplifies the noise enough that the A/D is able to sense it, then it should rise at a predictable linear rate. This would be the true way to determine the noise floor of the camera. Changing ISO does nothing to increase noise, it simply magnifies the noise created in the sensor, of course it also amplifies the image at the same rate. So all image to noise ratio is created in the sensor at the time of exposure regardless of the ISO setting.
Good follow up. Would be good to really drive home how this relates to dynamic range.
YES!!
The Photons for Photos site also includes dynamic range charts so you can see that.
@@defenderstargate1447 good to point out, it is a helpful resource for that.
I was the same, when I was a kid, used to take everything apart to understand how it really works ;-)
So here’s a question. Say I’m shooting a small event, and I want to stay in Aperture Priority so I can be fast paced. If I’m in auto iso, what should I set the min maximum at? If there’s a huge difference on the a7iii between just iso-500 vs 640, and I set the minimum to 640, I miss the opportunity to set the minimum to iso-100 for situations where there’s enough light. If I set the maximum iso too low, now I have to worry about the camera forcing the shutter speed too low.
So for someone (using Sony A7iii) that doesn't want to have to push ISO a huge amount in post (lots of extra time involved), the best way to work is that if I can't shoot at base ISO of 100, I should go straight to 640 rather than bothering with anything between the 200 and 500 range?
ISO is not fake . It is a standard. Some cameras are fake yes. But not all. People must learn to read the light in candels and lux. And use a professional light reader like Sekonic.
This is HUGELY practical. I remember when I was first getting started in photography, I was shooting an amateur fight event in a place with horrible lighting. The action was fast so I needed my shutter speed up. But I couldn't go too far up because it would just be pure black. As a result I had some underexposed blurry action shots. The only ones that looked half way decent were the guys before they threw a kick or a punch, not during the action itself. Had I known that I could shoot like that and then just push my exposure in post, I would've had so many more usable shots.
but the whole point of this was, that it (usually) does not matter if you increase iso or do it in post. So during your events you could have just upped your iso... doing it in post would have no benefit
@@MsIrrealis Yeah, I'm saying I didn't understand this and why having this knowledge is so practical. I was under the false assumption that ISO at shoot time vs boosting it in post were different. And as a result I had blurry images, had I known better I would've prioritized the shutter speed more.
Love this kind of technical video! Really learned something.
A question here: Why is there a noise drop at certain ISO?
I've not done any of the tests but have started to employ ETTR to good effect. I shot some pics at 6400 ISO and the images had hardly any noise - not exactly what you are talking about, but my point here is to expose correctly - as far to the right as you can - and what happens is you reduce the S/N ratio and thus noise in the darks. Shooting on a Canon 6D. Comparing these results to shooting at 100 ISO but underexposed and getting bags of noise all over the image. Metre right and push to the right.
This is a super useful video. There are bunch of nerds who want to know about these things!
Big thanks Tony!
6:44 ISO four hundred thousand? If I recall correctly, you did a 400 to 25600 comparison, but 400,000 when?
Having an A7III, you directly showed where my camera is ISO invariant. That's why after seeing Dave McKeegan's video on the topic too, I started ignoring ISO 500 entirely and sometimes even ISO 400 in the name of shutter speed. It's not often I'm even at this ISOs in the first place (usually at 100 or past 800), but it's helpful to know.
Tony, you are on to an amazing topic that so many people totatly mis understand. Can we all stop saying "ISO" and just call it what is REALLY is...."gain". Also, the term "exposure" only applies to shutter speed and aperture. "ISO/Gain" happen AFTER exposure is COMPLETED. What are we exposing image sensors to? LIGHT! Gain is NOT light. If your photosite is 50% full, 1 million "ISO" will not change that photosite's 1/2 full status!
Always surprised how deep you can dig in such a topic, now all is clear!
Thank goodness you finally mentioned dual ISO. That was really bugging me last time.
Ok so, let me clarify (& correct me if I'm wrong) ... For the Sony a7 III, if I have to correctly expose a photo by setting the ISO to 503, then I could just shoot at ISO 100 and raise the exposure in post. This will result in about the same amount of noise. Similarly, an image that needs proper exposure higher than ISO 640 can just be shot at ISO 640 and just be adjusted in post to get the same noise level. Is that right? That's why in minute 10:35, the noise is different because ISO 51,200 is only similar down to ISO 640 whereas ISO 100 can only be stretched out to ISO 503. That is also why these other youtube camera reviewers are getting different noise levels due to this "dual gain." The other reason being that their camera may not be truly ISO Invariant. Did I understand that correctly?
Tony, if I understand this correctly, and my main concern is noise, I should avoid ISOs 200 to 399 and jump to ISO 400 on the Nikon D850. Why is the Canon 5D Mark III so jagged? What does graph for the Canon 5D Mark III says about Canon's ISO?
Don’t worry about your haters. Those F stopper guys are a bit smug with their content delivery and you’ve always contributed value to the photography world.
So if it is too dark to use base ISO. It is better to underexpose, so the histogram should be on the left. You don't risk to loose any information about the highlights and you know you can raise shadows without loosing anything too.
Different thing if there is enough light to use base ISO. In that case it could be better to expose to the right, to have lower noise in the shadows.
Great video. Thank you. What's the deal with iso 640 on the a7iii? I thought you start at 100 and double the number, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 etc etc. So should I be using 640 instead of 400 or 800?
A little confused
I love these videos tony, and I have been sticking with my D750's for so long mainly because I can shoot everything at ISO 100 (single band native ISO) and adjust gain in post, able to recover ridiculous highlights and create incredible dynamic range in single shots. Doing this in situations where HDR isnt possible (moving subjects, events, weddings) gives a unique look that clients want to pay for. A feature that should be touted on new cameras much much more.
I can't count the number of times I shot a 3-frame AE-bracketed set of a high-contrast scene with my D750 to HDR-merge later, and ended up deleting all but the "underexposed" frame because it ended up looking just as good as the 16-bit HDR merged TIFF after pushing the shadows. I never expected that when I bought it, and I've always loved that about that camera because it's so useful. I agree this should be a better-known feature because for all the talk of "ISO-less cameras" it's clear this is far from universal, and a great many consumers wouldn't even realise the significance of this very technical-sounding metric.
TOTALLY WORTHWHILE! Just like knowing how a clutch/shift works on your car, allows you to drive it better. Knowing some of the things you revealed (some things I had no idea about!) certainly helps. At least those of us that don't live in AUTO world. Thanks.
Push gas, go, every car is the same..... Great analogy
I stopped following f stoppers when they were arguing whether a photo with the moon in front of clouds was real or fake.
And I acquired valuable facts and insights from that Fstoppers discussion.
the sweet spot on my EOS 2000D is around 1630 (indicated) ISO, I usually shoot at 400 so might be time for me to start to really play with my shutter speed and aperture settings...
I never leave comments on TH-cam, but this video is so good that I had to tell you! These technical videos are my favorite, might be because I’m an engineer :D
Thanks for the follow-up video Tony! One question tho, does that works the say way when shooting video? Meaning using ISO 640 rather than 500 for lower noise??
yes
I love these. As a kid, few of my toys remains in one piece long. Some of them returned to their retail glory, but many were learning experiences, or hangar queens.
Maybe it is time to change our vocabulary. For instance, new light emitting diode (LED) light bulbs now lists Lumens and their Watts equivalent. Lumen is the actual measure of light (that is produced by the bulb) but there needs to be a translation to the Watts-equivalent that we are all used to for incandescent bulbs.
So maybe we need to learn new terms like signal-to-noise ratio and signal gain, while also showing the equivalent in photographer-speak, like stops of noise and ISO (respectively).
It reflects the actual physics of semiconductor sensors, while also bridging to the 100 year old nomenclature created in the chemistry-based film days. As we transition to using both sets of vocabularies, it will become more comfortable, and also make more sense.
Thanks for these and other videos, Tony and Chelsea.
Ok. so for my D850, I should either shoot below ISO 150, or above 400 based on photonstophotos.
Great info.
Also check their dynamic range charts, you may reduce noise by dropping the iso but you'll probably also loose dynamic range.
Great info Tony. Understanding read noise at different ISO's is super useful. Thank you!
Are 12 bit cameras and 14 bit cameras directly comparable? My 90D appears to have more noise than my old 1000D within the common ISO range, according to Photons to Photos
Tony, if I check for the D7500, i see a drop at ISO400 (at a lower point than ISO200), would it be safe to say that after ISO100, ISO400 is better to use than ISO200? And after this, is it better to underexpose than overexposed? What would provide most detail? Seems we can easily bump up a stop. But clipping highlights is losing detail.
Good video Tony. That website is very useful. It might be an idea to do a video on dynamic range tradeoff using the same website. I could imagine some people noticing the big drop at say, 800 iso for noise on a dual gain sensor, and deciding to use that as their "base iso" without factoring in dynamic range.
Why did you not try the other cameras from their drop off point? I own a t-t2 and happen to know that the drop related to dual gain lays around iso 800, so is you compared between 800 and 12800 or something the difference would have been minimal.
I like the way the BMPCC4k handled the chart in their manual, it shows the same chart but with the exposure limits and illustrates that changing iso mainly changes the midpoint (within the dual gain extents)
Lower iso basically tends to capture a bit more colour detail but the noise is similar
When it comes to the technical side of cameras and photography, it just doesn't get any better than Tony.... on TH-cam. There may be folks who have even more information but they don't have TH-cam channels. FStoppers... please.
Trash
If you have such camera, you can shoot on much faster speeds in A mode for example. What I mean - If you compensate -3 stops in A and shoot moving objects you will receive 3 stops faster shutter and much better chance to have a picture without motion blur. This can be a difference, between unusable and usable photo.
Actually very interesting, I’ll have more control over my astrophotography results now. Thanks!
Aliens have abducted Tony and left us with this guy
5D Mark IV I hear is pretty much ISO 400 and above. Have you tested it? The thing I didn't hear you address though is, when you adjust the ISO in camera it adjust it before you hit the analog digital converter and if you do it this way, it came out of the converter on whatever ISO you had the camera on, some people were saying that caused artifacts. I don't know, haven't tested it.
In your last video, you did not just "hint at". You made a categorical statement that changing the ISO setting in my camera to increase the (apparent) exposure in my camera is exactly like moving the slider in Lightroom. There was no hedging.
It's good that you're correcting things now, but don't pretend that you didn't say what you said.
Whoa you went HUGE nerd on this! Right now FStoppers is like “fuuuuuuuu we should probably sit this one out”
Wait how do you get lightroom to push more than 3 stops worth?
If a Sony A7 III at ISO 636 has 1.558 Read Noise, thats saying you should not use ISO 503 having 4.199 Read Noise? Because of the drop there?
Hi Tony, very interesting video - especially the part about the dual-gain.
Wanted to ask - have you applied any noise-reduction in Lr ?
The ISP drop gap is great info. I now know the lowest ISO on my camera is not the best, and 1 stop higher is better. Thanks!
Hey. So Sony a7sii has a native ISO of 1600. If I want to shoot 4k 25 in a relatively bright scenario at 5.6 f-stop, do I have any alternative except an ND filter?
I´ve tried to compare ISO 320 and 400 (where should be the jump) on my D7500 and couldn´t see any difference. Any ideas what should I shoot to I could see it? Thank you
I'm also enjoying this kind of technical video, great Tony. Expecting more.
@Tony
Can you explain why one would see negative values on the Photons to Photos Charts ?
Example: Pull up the D3200 on the Read Noise in DNs vs ISO setting chart and at 100 and 200 ISO, it seems the values are negative ? Not quite sure how to interpret that.
Thanks
I have watched the videos on this topic and this is still not clear to me. I understand that the lowest native ISO will lead to the least amount of noise all other things being equal within the same camera. But it seems that any manufacturer could arbitrarily say that their lowest ISO was 64 or 100 or whatever. So if the exposure was exactly the same, and was shot with a Nikon at 64 ISO vs a Sony at 100 ISO - would there really be less noise? Has this ever been tested? Is there something special about the Nikons' sensor or optics that is different that the other manufactures? Please help.
This is very interesting info!. I'm learning my new Panasonic gh5 and wondering how does ISO effect my camera when recording video? Is it the same as when shooting pictures or does it use a different gain system for video? I'm used to my Canon XA10 video camera which is easier to understand as i knew anything above around an 8db gain setting would create visable noise.
Looking at the Read Noise graph for the a7iii, does ISO50 produce (ever so slightly) less noise than ISO100? Even though it's an 'extended' ISO and not base?
And - more interestingly - does ISO640 produce less noise than ISO400, and even ISO200?
Good job. You are learning. Astronomers have known this for years. Look up photon to electron exchange. The camera counts electrons, not photons. Yes, photon kick of the electrons that are counted. When you turn the ISO up the number of photons to electron ratio is read differently. So when you have a low photon to electron ratio you have the limit to how high the ISO should be set. One photon to one electron counted.
Just curious if you checked to see if the cameras change the excitation voltage on the sensor. It is my understanding that being able to precisely control the excitation voltage (gain) is what made the digital camera possible. My guess is that there was testing where they found what you did where manipulating the ISO with software and stepping the excitation voltage to sweet spots made more sense.
It’s all about how the hardware is programmed, those pesky ones and zeroes. Your explanations are good.
Thanks for doing the X-T2 and saving me the time 😅
HAHA Tony said I.S.O. @1:15... GOT 'EM! 😁
I would be interested regarding low light sensor cameras A7s and GH5s. Both have only about the half Megapixel. Are they better noise reduction or do i get the same result resize the non low light model down?
They're generally better in low-light for video but not for stills.
I love this nerd stuff! Thanks, Tony. The Photons to Photos site is extremely interesting.
I would like to know if older raw converters have the same results. I know many people still use LR3/LR4 and older versions of photoshop.
Followed what you said Tony with test on my A7iii all comes out just as you said even the drop off between 640 and 500, But what I dont get is after a few more tests using the same Tamron 28-75 at 75mm if I take 1 shot at iso 8000 at 2.8 1/640sec correct exposure its clean use same iso 8000 at 2.8 with 1/8000th sec and match the total exposure is full of noise am I missing something here? Anyone. Should this not give equal results?
Would it be possible to use this to create a "real" HDR photo. Duplicate the photo multiple times and change the exposure on each one. Then combine the photos into an HDR image. Would be be as good as taking HDR from your camera?
My camera has an almost straight graph with no stepping.
Not sure if this is a good or bad thing.
Mine too. Think that is good!?
Lol. Totally useless information but I enjoyed every minute of it. Nice job on not showing hate towards your critics. I find it healthy to have a civil discussion on these things. Many folks are unable to do that.
So, based on your first video on this topic, I did a test. I live in Cleveland, and we have a magnificent art museum that is free. I've photographed many of the statues in there before, oftentimes trying to get the slowest shutter speed I could without camera shake (Sony's IBIS helps a lot). These made for a useful subject of comparison. THIS TIME, I went in and purposefully underexposed most of my images by about two stops, which made getting photos without shake a relative breeze (again, thanks IBIS). On my older camera, an A7II, this would have resulted in an amount of noise I wasn't happy with. Of course, I knew the A7RIII's sensor would be better (that's why I spent the money to upgrade), but I was really shocked by the results I was able to get by pushing the exposure in Capture One in post. I also took some shots at higher ISOs which were "properly" exposed, and the amount of noise was virtually indistinguishable. In situations where I'm shooting something I HAVEN'T already done several times before, I will try to get closer exposure, as both version had SOME noise (though much much more manageable than before), but it's nice to know now that when I'm in a pinch, I now have a little more latitude in using a faster shutter speed and underexposing than I thought I did. So thanks for inspiring me to do some more experimenting with my gear. Hopefully, I'll have less blurred shots in the future to show for it.
On this chart, are cross-sensor-size and cross-resolution comparisons meaningful? I ask because when I pull up the charts for the 5D (any one other than the first Canon 5D) it shows more noise than the X-T2.
In the notes below the chart it says: "These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area."
I own a a73, the noise difference between image at ISO 640 and ISO 500 simply blow me away. Dual Gain stuff is new to me and will be thing to consider. Thanks Tony..
Appreciate your comment on the cal mill photo during the live travel program
You finally got everything correct, and corrected/pointed out the different of the test fstoppers did. We'll done Tony.
This was really interesting. Guess I won't be shooting iso 800 anymore, it's either 100 or 1600 haha
Crazy! I actually noticed more noise in an image from a shoot with 400 ISO than one with ISO 800 on my A7iii a few days ago and was wondering why. Now I know
Didn't know about the noise graphs. Raises a question about auto ISO. I often shoot with manual exposure time and aperture and with auto ISO. (Actually a Sony a7rm3.) Does anyone know if it is smart enough to let the ISO go up to 630 (or whatever the base ISO is) as long as there is no resulting over-exposure? I have noted that it quite often sets the ISO to 640, but don't know if it avoids 300-500 if it can without over-exposing.