Canon C200 Raw noise levels - Should you shoot 1-2 stops ETTR or ISO's 100 - 400?

[@juancarlospena7089]

I've had the camera since it came out in the U.S. I agree 100% with your opinion.

[@shoutinmime]

JC? Wow! I've been following your work forever!!! Love this dude!

[@AWilliamsfilm]

My exposure scenario doesn't get much harder and I'd appreciate an opinion 🤔 I shoot land-based surf video with C200 in 4k raw. I viewed this post looking for knowledge regarding iso as I'm uneducated. How should one approach iso selection with regards to these factors . The foam created by waves is white, the wave is generally quite dark, the subject (substance abusing, peace loving surfer) is generally in a black wetsuit, generally shooting at full telephoto end of the lens (400mm) The white foam must be overexposed for everything else to be correctly exposed. You' may have subjects to the left side and right side of you, meaning, you may at any time have the sun providing great or poor light if it is early morning here in sunny Newcastle, Australia on the beach, facing left into the sun will help using a polarising filter , but facing right, the polarising filter will darken the image. I could go on,... Eg, many sunny days will still have broken up clouds which requires constant quick readjustment of exposure. settings So regarding iso, what should I consider .... Would very much appreciate any assistance 🙏🏻

[@SuperRawza]

With the waves, iso 400, white parts of the waves no higher then 93 ire if you want any detail in them. But you always have to consider what’s most important and compromise!

[@AWilliamsfilm]

Much appreciated, thankyou.

[@timbytheriver]

Hi Rory. Firstly, your images look gorgeous - whatever your exposure strategy is! :) I stumbled onto this post (late to the party, I apologise) after interrogating my own exposure strategy - currently with the Canon R5 shooting Raw. All that follows is regarding shooting in RAW only! Your test is interesting, and perfectly valid, but I wonder whether the way you describe Expose To The Right (ETTR) in this video could use some clarification? Beyond the processing software responding to changes in metadata, the raw data captured will be exactly the same given the same light/aperture/shutter-speed at ISOs 100, 400, 800, 1600 etc. (NB ARRI Alexa users may disagree here. But that's another discussion…) The only way to truly ETTR (or ETTL) I know of is by increasing - or decreasing the light reaching the sensor for a given exposure - whether by aperture, shutter-speed - or increasing the physical lighting. This is also the only way to re-distribute tonal value-weighting either side of a middle grey point e.g. A bright high-key sun-lit exterior will benefit from careful ETTL (less light) if you wish to preserve highlights and mid-tones. And if you want to 'see into the shadows' in a low-key night interior it'll better be served if you ETTR (more light). Noise-wise, best results will always be produced at the sensor's designed/native ISO - if you can do so at the light levels available. I was initially thrown by your commentary at 10:06 about 'avoiding shooting a sunny-day at ISO 200 because the clipping of the highlights isn't so nice'. On reflection, I see this less as being directly related to ISO (intuition tells us to use lower ISO for more available light) - as exposure (light levels at the sensor). I translate this as 'better to be careful to just ETTL here to get bright tones & highlights retained' Simply altering ISO in raw won't in and of itself alter the tonal distribution of the shadows and highlights. Only a deviation of exposure: plus or minus from Normal (N) can do this. Or have I misunderstood your example here? I'd say digital ISOs are really just a convenient/modern way of visualising a correct/pleasing exposure on our camera screens - not a way to increase/decrease actual exposure. Many have argued that including digital ISO as part of the 'exposure triangle' is just plain wrong. So to answer the opening question you raise re noise at the start of the video I'd answer: Ideally, both! Lowest ISO possible, maybe in tandem with ETTR - that is judicious over-exposure (more light). Anyway, results-wise maybe we are actually in agreement - just using different terms to get to the same endpoint. ;) Anyway, great post - and thank you for stimulating my ageing grey-matter. PS The RawDigger app is invaluable in comparing actual raw data count and distribution, and as of the last update will open Canon CRM files for scrutiny. I recommend it! (not an affiliate btw). All the best.

[@SuperRawza]

Hey! Wow I appreciate the full attention you gave this. I actually don’t care too much now haha! I actually agree with you on pretty much everything. It’s incredibly hard to describe the complexity’s of all this. Changing ISO when shooting raw doesn’t change the data collected but many people don’t know it (save when a camera has dual native iso). Really all we are debating with ISO’s and expose to right or left is when important characteristics of the image might be threatened or when those characteristics are best delegated to a certain range of the sensor’s dynamic range. Basically saying that a higher iso is better for highlight clipping is only really saying the clipping will appear softer if data is recorded at ire values below 94 ire for example. So the clipping happens where there is still plenty of data to make it less harsh. The clipping is essentially artificial because the exposure raised above native iso. Saying that a lower iso is good for clean shadows is saying that data collected at IREs above a certain level will be clean from noise and have more detail. All you’re doing by using ISO instead of I need to expose left or right is making your life easier. You can look at it on the screen and know what it’s going to look like once recorded. All this is relevant for non raw recording and sometimes more important since you can really change exposure later one, not very well at any rate! I have the c70 and it has like 10:1 raw which I would have dreamed of 4 years ago. I don’t use it though! I just shoot 10 bit and often only in 2k! 🤣 But evidently these exposure concepts are very important for non raw! But then the dual gain on the c70 makes for some insanely clean shadows. You don’t have to worry about them. Only the highlights. One less thing to worry about! Nice! How are you liking the r5? I recently got the R6mkii as a b cam to the c70. I’m interested in testing it against the c70. It seems decent. I do miss the c series menu though! Going to move on the c200 soon. All the best, Rory.

[@timbytheriver]

@@SuperRawza And thanks for an extensive and detailed reply. We do seem to agree on the important points. ;) Complex indeed it all is, which sometimes can get in the way of an intuitive process. The C70 sounds lovely, but I'm sure you'd get lovely images out of any camera! The R5 has hidden strengths: but it's not the raw 8K I'd say. With careful exposure placement I'm finding that the downsampled 8K ( 4K-Fine) setting shot in Rec2020/PQ in H265 can look peachy - better than the C-logs I'd say. Shooting to a compressed format also makes one more disciplined at the point of shooting - and less post-processing too. But of course, you're right - none of this matters! I see you're getting on with life and getting lots out of it! Stay well.

[@NaturalGallantBodybuilding]

I get massive noise levels even at 800 Iso. So much so that you can see the grain even if I crush the shadows.

[@SuperRawza]

Not surprised :P

[@dougbirnbaum2583]

Thanks for posting this test. I recently picked up a C200 and this is very helpful.

[@JeffSpeers]

Per Canon's whitepapers, if low noise shadows are desired, expose below ISO 800 to provide additional stops below the recommended 18% gray exposure. You can gain as much as 3 stops below middle gray at ISO 100 but you lose 3 stops above because it shifts towards the shadows when you go below ISO 800. Additionally, I am guessing you don't know about black balancing as you didn't mention it in the video even though it is very important. Doing the black balance will fix a lot of your issues. No need to treat the C200 like a consumer Sony camera with exposing 2 stops TTR.

[@claytonsmith2562]

So in summary - use ISO 400 and below to expose at key - ISO's above 400, ETTR - as in-camera noise reduction DOES apply, after ISO800. I definitely feel the noise at 800 is a 'look', not quite as clean as the base ISO should be. So for me base is 400 for my C200! Thanks for doing this video - was keeping me awake thinking about this haha.

[@SuperRawza]

Glad it made sense!

[@lostinflow]

Some things you do not notice until you do some heavy color grading. Iso 400 usually holds up much better than 1600

[@healing2gether]

Bro your talking head parts of the video are an absolutely insanely beautiful image!! It’s awesome!! I assume it was shot with the c200, but what lens?

[@SuperRawza]

Thanks, yes c200 and probably just the canon ef 24-70 MkII (this was a while ago now). It’s mainly just the lighting setup and composition in this case.

[@healing2gether]

@@SuperRawza thank you my friend! I am learning to light better as you can see from the videos on my channel here, I’m an addiction recovery coach started a community called healing together, but I take a lot of pride in my production value. I hope someday I can light as well as you, love the image you’ve got here!

[@duenwegrobbie]

Over expose using aperture or shutter. The point of over exposing is to keep the noise floor in the bottom stop of dynamic range. If you over expose using ISO you're just raising the noise floor as well.

[@SuperRawza]

Robbie Duenweg Did you watch the video?

[@vladrapchan5330]

Hey, Rory! I was just watching your video again (I’ve watched a couple of times already) and noticed that Robbie’s comment and your replyjust happened a couple of hours ago. What a coincidence! I’ve always wanted to discuss the exact same thing! Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I’m under the same impression Robbie is. I’ve noticed you tested different “exposure” scenarios, but maybe in a unexpected way. Let me try to explain myself (and maybe Robbie’s ?) point of view. It seems you controlled your exposure compensation in a digital manner, which might not be the best way when trying to analyze noise and/or dynamic range. Gain and its opposite, attenuation, don’t really affect exposure. They are electric and/or digital (depending on the camera manufacturer) manipulations of a signal already gathered. I apologize in advance if you already understand that. It’s just that considering this point, the whole video becomes a little confusing. When you say you’re trying to compare videos shot in proper exposure with videos shot ETTR using ISO, it seems you incur in the fundamental (and unfortunately well spread) error of considering a change in ISO a change in exposure. Am I missing something here!? Is that the case!? I’m just thinking here what you were actually trying to compare. Could you elaborate a little bit more, please? Maybe your whole video has a different purpose and I just couldn’t understand it. When I first found your video, I was really interested in seeing the effect of C200’s different ISOs in its noise and dynamic range performance. But maybe that’s not the intent of the video and I just got everything wrong.

[@vladrapchan5330]

Just to be clear: when I say you controlled your exposure compensation digitally, I’m not referring to the Raw manipulation in the software. I’m talking about raising your ISO. Considering we’re discussing a Canon camera, whose ISO/Gain processing is actually more than simple middle gray digital remapping (it actually also applies different voltage to the sensor), I was double wrong... hehe

[@SuperRawza]

Vlad Rapchan Ahhh.. yes it can get complicated! The main point of the test was to see if ISO changed in post (raw controls/digital as you say) was any different to changing it in camera (might be digital, might be electric as you say). Conclusion from what I could tell: no difference from ISO 100 up to ISO 800 (This tells me that in camera this is digital, just the same as it is using raw controls in post). Second conclusion: ISO’s above 800 have a different noise floor and give cleaner shadows with 2 stop etr compared to 800. The trade of being loss of highlight dr. (The noise diff and dr diff tells me that it’s electric enhancement of the sensor). I think this agrees with what you are trying to tell me. But what’s the point. I guess to try and prove that shooting between iso 100 and 800 doesn’t result in a loss of DR and that knowing this you could use any of those ISOs. As long as you know where your dr has shifted and you allow for this in your exposure method, you are as “safe” as you are at iso 800. This test was really triggered by the knowledge of how ISO works on reds and how it’s all digital (excluding dual base ISO units). The benefit being that you always have the same DR available to you. There are DPs who will shoot iso 400 for a clean image rather than expose 1sttr at 800 and bring it down in post. It saves time and what you see in camera is closer to what you want in post. I wanted to see if aspects of this camera where the same to inform my own methods. When shooting raw I often shoot 400, however when shooting MXF I find a little grain to be invaluable in smoothing the potential for 8 bit artefacts. So I preference iso 800 with no ettr when shooting 8 bit. I hope I’ve been able address some things that I wasn’t able to in the video! Otherwise keep trying to clarify, I don’t mind!

[@claytonsmith2562]

@@SuperRawza This is a great summary here!

[@jeremyalameda5061]

Your C200 footage looks fantastic! I've had my C200 for 2 years now and still can't consistently figure out proper exposure for the various profiles. I purchased specifically for the RAW option, but in my experience, you have to nail exposure for RAW in camera and there really is no room to adjust in post-production. It's either preserve the highlights or crush the black, there is no in-between without grainy shadows.

[@SuperRawza]

Jeremy Alameda Thanks! Yes you definitely need to nail exposure but not as much as 8 bit! If you want the best of both worlds with raw you have to find the sweet spot. For me that’s 400. I rarely shoot raw now though, doing more doco stuff, but it still comes up nice in the cinema!

[@jeremyalameda5061]

@@SuperRawza Thanks for the info. When you say comes up nice in the cinema, do you mean the cinema color profile?

[@SuperRawza]

Jeremy Alameda No worries. No i meant in cinemas.

[@nanoIQ]

I'd really love to hear more on your views on C200! Hope you'll make more this kind of stuff along your other videos. 😊

[@SuperRawza]

Thanks! Anything specific you'ed like to see talked about or tested? I certainly have some opinions on some things that could be improved and definitely some things that I love! I'm going to be on a music video where the DP is going to be using an Arri Amira as the A-cam and my C200 as the B-cam on a gimbal. Should be interesting, keen to see how they match!

[@nanoIQ]

@@SuperRawza Great! What I've heard they should be good match! Some themes came to mind: RAW's need lot of memory, so how you deal with issue in general, do you have a backpack full of memorycards ready for every shoot or do you have (or would you even considor?) using cable+drive hacks for C200 as some youtubers are testing out? New Canons are famous for they auto-focus: as a filmmaker do you trust the c200 magic on this or is manual focusing the only (right) way in your opinion? C200 is pricey. Have you had any douds now that there is so many other options of smaller, cheaper and (almost) as good feature packed cameras on the market? Sorry for the bad english, I'm from Finland!

[@SuperRawza]

nanoIQ Raw file size: I have 2x 256gb and 1x 128gb C fast2 cards which allows for 1 hour and a half of footage. I once had to offload a card half way through an interview onto my laptop. Cfast to SSD is super fast, took 5 mins. But yes, next time a film a project like that I'd like to have a 1TB SSD running which would give 2 hours. I would use a cfast to SSD adapter in scenarios like that, but I much prefer to minimise clutter. Maybe a 500gb cfast 2 card would get me out of trouble.. Autofocus: I use it when shooting documentary and only to acquire focus or reacquire it. I use it to track focus as well when moving in or out if I'm running a gimbal. Works fantastically. If I'm shooting something with the budget for an AC I would still prefer to have one, because there are some lighting scenarios that can mess it up and there are some things you can communicate to auto focus!. That being said; it's hard to beat it's handiness at tracking focus on a dolly in or out. Only a very good AC and grip combo can nail that. So yes and no really, in low budget, it's worth the risk. I haven't had any doubts (other than the lack of doc friendly codec or 8:1 raw for example). It seems to be extremely reliable, bug free and built really well. Understandably there are cheaper cameras that look better on paper or are comparable, but specs aren't everything. I recently shot a doc in raw and pushed the DR pretty hard and have been very impressed. Shooting internal 3:1 raw with NDs, really good autofocus is a bit of a dream. But look, when I bought this cam it was about what will do me for the next 5 years. A mirrorless just wouldn't! That being said, canon need to get their act together and give users some raw compression options! To me, that's far more valuable than 10bit MXF for example! Hope that helps, let me know if you have any other questions!

[@nanoIQ]

@@SuperRawza Many thanks for your thoughts! Very interesting. I'm trying to save some coin for this or perhaps for the next pro-version mirrorless from Canon (if they get specs correct with that one) :) Have a nice day!

[@christophershivers6257]

from my research and understanding, iso has nothing to do with noise. The only thing iso does is make the sensor more sensitive to light. Example if you stand outside when the sun is shinning and shoot at an absurdly high iso, the only noise you will see is in the shadows. Why? because you get noise not from iso but from your ire. Each camera has certain requirements for ire level and noise. for the c200 is ire 15 and below, for Panasonic gh5 it's like 30 and below. So if your scene hits at those levels for those specific cameras you will see noise regardless of iso. And making the iso higher will make the noise more prominent because the sensor is getting more sensitive so it amplifies everything including noise. So iso only makes the sensor sensitive it doesn't introduce noise. If you're in a well lit area and you're shooting 4000 iso, you're not going to see much noise. But if you're outside in the dark and shoot at 4000 you will see a lot of noise, because most of the scene is hitting the bad ire spot at night. Hopefully this makes sense.

[@SuperRawza]

I agree with what your saying in part. This is why I did these tests. People ETTR because noise is strongly present at a 15 ire for example at ISO 800. Noise isn't always in the bottom 15 ire though. ISO 800 all the way down to ISO 100 is literally the same data as ISO 800 (when shooting Raw). A tone that was 40 ire at ISO 800 is moved down to 20 ire when at ISO 200. This is the reason that noise is hidden in the -0 to 5 ire region at ISO 200. Bring ISO 200 up to stops using raw exposure controls and the noise will be at exactly the same level is ISO 800. Highlights will clip at the same point too. If the bottom 15 ire were noisy at ISO 200 then if you brought it up 2 stops the bottom 35 ire would be noisy. This is simply not the case. What your talking about is true enough for ISO 800 and above. Hope that makes sense and that I haven't completely misunderstood you!

[@RayValdezPhotography]

I like to play in the shadows ;)

[@rickyang9930]

Not so sure about how Canon works, but for Arri or Sony camera they capture the light with the native iso as soon as it starts, and EI just shift the dynamic range. Lower EI for larger dynamic range in shadow, On the other hand, for camera like BM ursa mini pro, you lose a bit dynamic range of highlight while you shot with lower iso.

[@jonnynoakes9070]

Something I read or heard was that the best iso increments are 800 then 1600 then 3200, apparently the isos inbetween those can introduce more noise. Who knows if that’s true 🤷‍♂️😂

[@AllThingsKen]

If you want to see your scene the way it looks, why not use an overexposure Lut? I use the FS5 with an -1.5 Lut in my smallHD focus. IN post just had the same lut. EI (exposure Index) aka overexposure works the same as ISO for some cameras. I dont trust lower isos because they crush the blacks more.

[@SuperRawza]

ISO's crush shadows if you aren't shooting raw. So in that sense ETTR makes sense. It also makes sense if you can use a lut in camera to monitor what would be the final exposure.

[@chennyye28]

I don't have a lot knowledge about this topic, but it seems Canon's footage is better than Sony and Panasonic in using the normal exposure. I saw Max review the C200 and mentioned that Sony A7s ii really need to do the exactly 2 stop right expose to get rid of the noise, Panasonic is a little better, but Canon is really good at this. Also saw a review about the arri mini, it seems really good at high light recover. I think you can really use the iso you want as you had tested it. Nice job and good images! Cheers

[@SuperRawza]

Nothing can top Arri for highlight recovery and camera reliability, but thats why they cost so much! Do you mean normal exposure at base ISO (Middle grey at 35ire for example)? Can't comment too much on how much it compares to other cams, but a lot of tests people have done were initially done in MP4 which is much cleaner due to internal noise reduction and the compression (also much softer). When you throw it into Raw mode you really have to treat it differently and try to get the thickest "Negative" which is how you should treat every raw format. I have heard the FS5 II pro res raw is very noisy, and the reason is that its an older sensor, most of the image quality improvements were actually to do with the cameras internal codec and how it reduced noise and interpreted the colours. Not sure about the EVA1, havent heard about its raw output! Thanks, glad you liked it!

[@Brett.Hatfield]

good shit bro..fuuakkkkk i subscribed

[@SuperRawza]

Thanks brother

[@filmselparaiso6263]

Great vid thanks

[@bobbypitts]

Great work on this test. I try to shoot under 400 most of the time shooting RAW, but I didn’t realize how much it effects the highlights in bright situations. Maybe then I will push it to 640

[@SuperRawza]

Bobby Pitts Thanks! Yeah rolloff at ISO 100 is awful on any camera! I didn't test rolloff specifically ofcourse, but I recon you'ed be pretty alright at ISO 400. Best of both worlds in my opinion. ISO 640 or 800 if you want to be bright and clipping into pure white for sure!

[@bobbypitts]

Gotcha! Will be conscious of that on my next shoot. Thanks again, what a great tip!

[@SuperRawza]

Bobby Pitts my pleasure! Also ISO 200 is great for dark scenes, low key lighting where you are in control of lighting. As long as nothing goes over 70 ire at ISO 200 the clipping shouldn't be an issue and you'll have a super clean image. Happy shooting!

[@CM-ft9ep]

Can you detail your RAW development? Cinema Gamut to CLog2?

[@berangke]

Thanks a lot man! This helps me heaps.

[@SuperRawza]

Thank you Xiang! It helped me too. Had some ideas about it, but good to be %100 sure when going against a trend. All this applies to older Reds except there is no benifit in shooting ISO 3200 for example as its just iso 800 brought up 2 stops. Everything is ISO 800 remapped: So ISO 200 is the best bet for super clean blacks because its ISO 800 brought down 2 stops. Happy shooting!

[@SuperRawza]

If you want to look into it more have a listen to this: wanderingdp.com/podcast/the-wandering-dp-podcast-episode-33-red-cameras-and-iso/

[@BastiMark]

So I cant good undertstand it, which are now the beat film conditions? to overexpose 1 Stop?

[@SuperRawza]

You can do what ever you want. ETTR 1 or 2 stops or shoot iso 400 or 200 and not bother with the extra work that comes with ETTR.

[@jasonarrandavis]

Hi Mate, great video! What was the resolution for this video? It seems wider that 4096 x 2160 ? Also what lens did you use for this video ? thank you

[@SuperRawza]

Thanks! Timeline was 2048 x 1080 (1.89 to 1) and it was shot at 4096 x 2160 (1.89 to 1). I think youtube may give the impression that its wider than usual because its geared to a 1.77 to 1 aspect (1920 x 1080 and 3840 x 2160) and has black bars when you aren't in full screen mode. I was using the canon 24-70 F2.8 II, lovely lens when on sticks doing interviews!

[@AWilliamsfilm]

Do you have any knowledge regarding the C200 and fixed pattern noise? I'm noticing faint vertical lines in my 4k video

[@SuperRawza]

Have you tried to do a black balance? But no I hadn’t experienced fixed pattern noise when I had the c200. If Black Balancing doesn’t fix the issue then it’s probably a dying sensor or perhaps you just need to avoid under exposing.

[@AWilliamsfilm]

@@SuperRawza thanks, I'll have to learn/try a black balance. And cross my fingers that the sensor isn't dieing 🤞🏻

[@AWilliamsfilm]

Black balance had no effect. I still have feint vertical columns in my video especially noticeable when panning. Weighing the Canon repair cost against purchasing another second hand c200 , I realised that my C200 is about to become a very expensive paper Weight.

[@SuperRawza]

Ah damn. That’s very disappointing. RIP. 😢

[@toby8462]

Dude Auto black balance.You shouldnt have bad noise if youre Auto black balancing. Otherwise if youre shooting log than you always over expose 1-3 stops

[@SuperRawza]

Toby G Dude I don’t have a noise problem. This is in response to people under exposing.

[@claytonsmith2562]

Just wondering how you're grading - in Clog2 or Clog3? I've run into frustration with my C200 because it can't monitor Clog2 exposure - the waveform will only show you Clog3. I've found there's about 1 extra stop in the highlights when I finally look at the waveform when color grading... Have you noticed this?

[@SuperRawza]

Clayton Smith Hi! I'm generally grading from clog2 and occasionally clog3 if the shots a bit flat and I want more contrast. But generally my process is to add a lut (combo of arri Rec 709 and red ipp2) which I made in resolve which allows for a high level of DR and adjust contrast from there. In terms of monitoring; I haven't noticed the kind of issue you are talking about. Clog 3 monitoring reads everything as a stop darker and this shows on the waveform when you switch to clog2. Maybe a bug?

[@claytonsmith2562]

So when we're monitoring we can only see a Clog3 lut & waveform, but the actual Raw data is Clog2 gamma - I know that's interchangeable "metadata", but the raw image captured is Clog2. So would be great to actually see the Clog2 waveform in-camera - if you're wanting to put the highlights in a particular place in Clog2, you kind of have to guess that they're going to be a stop above what the Clog3 is showing... But also for the shadows - I've experienced a lot of noise if the Clog2 exposure is under the 15IRE you mentioned, so I'm generally trying to ETTR when shooting 800iso. From your tests I can see the highlight rolloff changing with the lower iso's, but it definitely doesn't look like a huge issue in the results (a good thing). Most of the work I'm doing utilises the dynamic range in both the shadows and highlights, so usually would be shooting 800iso. But yeah, just annoyed I can't monitor the RAW information properly, it's the only real gripe with this great camera!

[@legendp2011]

cant you expose to the right 2 stops over and than use a monitor with a lut (like the small hd focus) to show what the corrected exposure looks like, that way best of both worlds?

[@SuperRawza]

Yes you could and definitely worthwhile if there isn't enough light for ISO's 200 and 400 to be exposed normally. Ideally you could put custom luts into the camera itself, but this is canon we are talking about..

[@tomjkelly]

Surely because its raw the ISO is just metadata so as long as highlights are not clipped you can do what you want?

[@SuperRawza]

Well yeah and that is %100 the case with Red raw, ISO's are just looks, not baked in. But with Raw in cameras that change the sensitivity of the photo-sites at higher ISOs there is a difference in the data available in the raw file. You get a finer grain when exposed correctly, but at the cost of less dynamic range. The theory I'm going with in regard to the C200 is that ISOs below ISO 800 are just ISO 800 with different “metadata”. So yeah, when people are worrying about losing data because they are below base ISO, it's unsubstantiated!

[@tomjkelly]

Very interesting and your results concur with that as I didn't see any change below 800. However surely thats the same for Redraw when going above native ISO it has to amp the signal? I'm someone who is currently considering a C200 over a Red so this is all important info to see how different Raws behave.

[@SuperRawza]

Tom J. Kelly I believe Reds never enhance the signal physically. Which is a mixed blessing I guess. I would like to know at what point the C200 is enhancing the signal though. Anyway yeah, a lot of people toss between Reds and this cam. Plenty of pros and cons on both sides!

[@christophershivers6257]

i ended up switching from red to canon

[@jonathanmasters2178]

Rory McLeod the method shown is only talking about exposing using your iso, if you over expose your shot with aperture you might get different results

[@edhughes8893]

Were you shooting Log?

[@SuperRawza]

Ed Hughes No, raw