ISO Invariance (ISO is Fake Follow-up)

[@kodycheyne]

I’m actually really enjoying these technical videos. 👍🏿

[@Razor2048]

Same here, I prefer a more tech focus to things.

[@kamilkp]

Me too! Totally!!

[@gaborandnova4871]

Me too, Tony is the best when it comes to camera related stuff! :)

[@andyhi99]

Yeah, we need series called Tony's Tech Tuesday/Thursdays.

[@gaborandnova4871]

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...

You should make more videos like these, talking about the more technical stuff

[@JoeMaranophotography]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@KarenBaker616263]

I SO confused ~

[@PossMcLeod]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@socratesvela8285]

😂

[@skyecommander2169]

😂I see what you did there

[@elram2649]

Rim shot! 😄

[@lylestavast7652]

well played Karen, well played...

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

Never try to out-geek a committed geek. Thanks, Tony. Your turn, @Fstoppers!

[@abeambo123]

They should keep trying so that we get more of these awesome videos! :)

[@chromaticvisuelle]

That was actually very interesting! After 7 years doing photography, I didn't know about this "ISO drop gap" ! Thank you !

[@osliverpool]

I didn't know about it after 52 years! :-)

[@alexdukay276]

The lesson to learn here is to light your shot and not get confused by all the ' experts'

[@ziginox]

Julien, the dual-gain ISO is a relatively recent development.

[@tsoupakis]

I am pretty sure none of us actually did 😂😂

[@lylestavast7652]

@@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.

[@bulgariastan]

I follow Tony like he's the New York Yankees in these KZbin photography controversies. They throw everything at him and he bats it away.

[@jerbear75]

@jp Mariners could make him look silly?

[@bulgariastan]

@@JoeMaranophotography "No one cares about Micro 4 loser thirds"- Camera Conspiracies

[@bulgariastan]

@@JoeMaranophotography Says the guy with Lumix all over his content.

[@bulgariastan]

Joe Marano eeehhhhhhhh.......oooooooookkkkkkaaaaayyyyy.

[@mengshun]

As of today, he's more like the LA Dodgers and just keeps smacking homers.

[@DylanHaskin]

Tony, I love how unaffected by critics you seem. You don't seem to take things personally. It's really refreshing.

[@andyhenderson8757]

Not sure if sarcasm or........

[@DylanHaskin]

Andrew Henderson not sarcasm.

[@DarrenD777]

@@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. :-)

[@kalali462]

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.

[@andrewbennett7786]

I hope, for my sake, English is your first language

[@stans5270]

Tony is trolling all his critics.

[@lylestavast7652]

shamelessly ! haha...

[@amdenis]

Keep doing technical, as most other otherwise knowledgeable YT channel providers often get the technical details wrong, while you are almost always correct. Thanks.

[@Gary_E_Anderson]

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!

[@paulcaskey]

Every time he said "ENHANCE!", I expected him to solve a murder mystery.

[@GrantSR]

Finally, KZbin 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.

[@Augnos]

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!

[@FatForWeightLoss]

Wow! Those signal to noise drops are REALLY interesting!

[@billzidis2656]

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

[@MyMomSaysImSmart]

“They did a really...good job of it.” Just say what you’re feeling Tony, I heard that microscopic pause 😂

[@Tom_Swiss]

Battle of the egos..

[@testthewest123]

Well, you call this "manners" or even civilized behaviour.

[@PhotoBob]

😂😂😂

[@dirkverest]

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?

[@Jeremy2A]

I love when you make these videos! I learn something and the comments that people leave you are comedic relief lol

[@DarrenD777]

LOL. Right? LOL.

[@boonedockjourneyman7979]

Honesty is your greatest strength. Please keep citing sources and explaining what you know v what you think. Your are a rare guy.

[@chasingluminance]

Nice job Tony! You tackled the issue very well, and I’m now obsessed with geeking out over those iso charts

[@alexandreblanchet8856]

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!

[@steveg2417]

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

[@BlokeOnAMotorbike]

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...

[@atbsigma]

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.

[@MobiusCoin]

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.

[@MsIrrealis]

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

[@MobiusCoin]

@@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.

[@makerspace533]

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.

[@malenky4057]

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?

[@pk2hitman47]

Tony, ignore the haters, I love technical videos. And many more people love them. Keep them up :D

[@wer78889]

Love this kind of technical video! Really learned something. A question here: Why is there a noise drop at certain ISO?

[@DJLsbVapes]

I was the same, when I was a kid, used to take everything apart to understand how it really works ;-)

[@GillesQuennevilleGQ]

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.

[@RealRaynedance]

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.

[@chrisogrady28]

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.

[@rhythmace1]

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.

[@nitaipadakamaladas4873]

Always surprised how deep you can dig in such a topic, now all is clear!

[@eduardoribeiro383]

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.

[@scallen3841]

Fan boy alert

[@kalali462]

I certainly intend for ISO invariance to affect my photography-by expanding my dynamic range up to some 6 stops.

[@scallen3841]

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 .

[@RossMcLendon]

Good follow up. Would be good to really drive home how this relates to dynamic range.

[@DarrenD777]

YES!!

[@defenderstargate1447]

The Photons for Photos site also includes dynamic range charts so you can see that.

[@RossMcLendon]

@@defenderstargate1447 good to point out, it is a helpful resource for that.

[@AykutArgun]

This is a super useful video. There are bunch of nerds who want to know about these things! Big thanks Tony!

[@SuperDineshdanny]

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..

[@clifftotten7609]

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!

[@Thebrodelicious]

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.

[@lanceevans1689]

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.

[@andyhenderson8757]

Push gas, go, every car is the same..... Great analogy

[@PhotoBob]

Whoa you went HUGE nerd on this! Right now FStoppers is like “fuuuuuuuu we should probably sit this one out”

[@TomFlink]

Great info Tony. Understanding read noise at different ISO's is super useful. Thank you!

[@dragone7e]

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??

[@beatboxerjonasz2]

yes

[@DaleSheltonsPage]

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.

[@smoogles]

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)

[@Vidmir69]

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.

[@ernestchew88]

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!

[@GrlldChs]

I never leave comments on KZbin, 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

[@KidRichmond]

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.

[@richardastearman7689]

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.

[@DennisKapatos]

When it comes to the technical side of cameras and photography, it just doesn't get any better than Tony.... on KZbin. There may be folks who have even more information but they don't have KZbin channels. FStoppers... please.

[@andyhenderson8757]

Trash

[@jack002tuber]

Aliens have abducted Tony and left us with this guy

[@jorellegates4099]

I really like your technical videos...and even if something you said wasn’t 100% correct 100% of the time, it’s still fun to talk about. Any chance you could find out how to determine a safe reciprocal rule for using electronic shutter?

[@FlyingHazel]

I stopped following f stoppers when they were arguing whether a photo with the moon in front of clouds was real or fake.

[@kalali462]

And I acquired valuable facts and insights from that Fstoppers discussion.

[@TheDominicballard96]

You're so nerdy and I love it!

[@johnvalk]

Appreciate your comment on the cal mill photo during the live travel program

[@michaelandreas2177]

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.

[@desertbornproductions]

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

[@luiztosk]

This was very inspiring! Did the test and saw some ripple on the histogram, with frequency proportional to ISO and perceived noise, gotta dig deeper.

[@Biovirulent]

This was really interesting. Guess I won't be shooting iso 800 anymore, it's either 100 or 1600 haha

[@joelong9260]

I note over on sonyalpharumours they have purported specs for a new Sony sensor having a “PGA”. This is a programmable (variable) gain amplifier and likely explains these steps in noise. There is an equation used in my field called the Friss equation that is used to determine the total noise in a system of amplifiers. One of the axioms that comes from this is the noise of the first stage is most important but only if you have significant gain in this first stage. So assuming the on chip PGA is at least as quiet as the rest of circuitry then increasing the gain of this stage will decrease the overall system noise. I’m an astrophotographer with a Sony a7riii and I always use ISO 640 or sometimes a little bit higher.

[@Chubby_Hubby]

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.

[@savagefrieze4675]

It’s all about how the hardware is programmed, those pesky ones and zeroes. Your explanations are good.

[@ThomasO2]

Thank goodness you finally mentioned dual ISO. That was really bugging me last time.

[@Joel4JC]

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?

[@tedmanasa907]

Actually very interesting, I’ll have more control over my astrophotography results now. Thanks!

[@iainreeve4522]

Great video ... and kudos for the calm way you are dealing with the critics. FWIW, I think you are right about ISO. In a film camera, using a different ISO rated film made a physical difference to your images. In effect it allowed you to change the film equivalent of a digital camera's sensor. But a digital camera doesn't make a physical change to anything when we change the ISO setting. The only way that a digital camera can simulate a change of ISO film is through software in the camera. So it stands to reason that using software in camera to boost an image produces a similar (but not identical) result to using software in post production to boost an image. Aperture and shutter speed make physical changes to the amount light hitting the sensor. On a digital camera ISO can only work through software.

[@mtollin2002]

Good follow-up. The first video did seem a little off. But you have more than clarified the details here. Thank you!

[@Jjydvfgcmsr]

Thanks for doing the X-T2 and saving me the time 😅

[@christianmueller2372]

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?

[@TonyAndChelsea]

They're generally better in low-light for video but not for stills.

[@osliverpool]

Ha, that Photons to Photos thing is really interesting. On my 5DII, through experience I'd found ISO 800 to be a sweet spot, and checking the chart I see that's just before the point where noise goes linear and where lower ISOs are up and down and don't offer much. Thanks for that, Tony.

[@osliverpool]

Ooh, and my Fuji X100F (which I haven't had long enough to get to know properly yet) has that dual gain dip at ISO 800, so 800 seems to be a sweet spot for that camera too.

[@brucekraft744]

I love this nerd stuff! Thanks, Tony. The Photons to Photos site is extremely interesting.

[@What_Other_Hobbies]

Ok. so for my D850, I should either shoot below ISO 150, or above 400 based on photonstophotos. Great info.

[@MrSamoDude]

Also check their dynamic range charts, you may reduce noise by dropping the iso but you'll probably also loose dynamic range.

[@comeraczy2483]

Really glad that you settled the score with fstoppers. Considering that they are supposed to be enlightened professionals, parts of their self-proclaimed "mythbusting" video was a bit too close to gross disinformation. That said, if some day you run out of ideas, and if you want to alienate a substantial portion of your audience, a deep dive into the technicalities of the excellent photons to photos graphs would be an awesome idea :-). Even though these curves probably won't directly help anyone take better pictures, they still provide great insights into the inner working of digital cameras and also in the commercial strategies of different manufacturers (I was surprised by the noise and PDR shadow improvement curves for the sony a7 III).

[@kalali462]

The Fstoppers duo are indeed enlightened professionals, as it were. Merely, no expert is expert in every subfield of the field. Further, although I myself do think the 'mythbusting' label was misplaced-if mainly because viewers, favoring interpersonal rivalry, would intuit 'mythbusting Tony', not 'mythbusting ISO'-I found no approximation of 'gross disinformation'. Lee Morris performed tests in good faith, showed the methods and the results, and limited his results to that one camera under the test conditions. That enabled attempted replication of the results or, as it happened, reinterpretation of the results. This is otherwise called the scientific method.

[@comeraczy2483]

@@kalali462 You are making an excellent point and I fully agree with you that nobody is - or should be expected to be - an expert in every subfield in the field. Enlightened professionals are definitely expected to have gaps in their expertise and I personally expect enlightened professionals to be aware of the limitations of their expertise (as opposed to mere amateurs who can't know these limitations). In this specific case, Lee Morris decided to speak out on the topic with the explicit (in the title) objective of proving a rival's claim wrong. Lee performed a weakly designed test that showed a marginal difference with his rival's conclusion. Instead of taking the most basic step to investigate the trivial reason for the minor discrepancy (the non linearity at ISO 400), he simply stated that there is a difference and that anyone who claims otherwise is wrong (around 7:45). In this specific context I have the feeling that there wasn't a strong commitment to quality of information and that the catchy title might be a giveaway for the actual motivation for the video but that's only my limited perception in this specific context.

[@filipschlembach9388]

Thank you for this video! If you were to enjoy digging deeper I’m curious why there aren’t more than two amplifying circuits built into modern cameras resulting in more “bumps” in the graph and lower high-iso noise. 😊

[@arunbalakrishnan8978]

I'm also enjoying this kind of technical video, great Tony. Expecting more.

[@ikoyDaPnoy]

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?

[@thevisi0naryy]

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.

[@skykingimagery899]

What an interesting review and concept. I thought it was all about noise. (S/N ratios). It is about range. All the more reason that polar mounts and trackers are a must for astro-photography. Dont forget or subordinate DSLRs to Mirrorless cameras.

[@tsoupakis]

WOW.. just thank you. After owning myb6d for like 6 years or so, suddenly make sense why I find iso 2500 so suitable. It is really kind of funny but also a really good bit if information for looking on a new camera..!! Thank you again :)

[@Roland314]

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.

[@leerass]

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.

[@f2.8-]

Not related to the video, but it is something i have wonder about for a long time. Do you need to multiply the crop factor of aps-c cameras to the focal lenght of aps-c specific lenses? For example the ef-s lenses from canon.

[@TonyAndChelsea]

Yeah, it's the size of the camera's sensor that determines crop.

[@christopherward5065]

A good experiment. Difficult to apply very usefully. Post production normally debugs images effectively and, deliberate superunderexposure is not a goto choice especially if you can’t see the results properly on-screen.

[@thomasglendenning3486]

In Photoshop and Lightroom (as well as other programs) there are many ways to edit a picture, your argument is just you trying to convince folks you actually know what you're doing. Sad

[@vedranb87]

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

[@tamasvarga67]

Great info I think it cleared up any confusion.... unlike dxo the photonstostop charts are very useful and practical.

[@mcunner]

Lower iso basically tends to capture a bit more colour detail but the noise is similar

[@tsoupakis]

Also there is a question always popping up in my mind, kind on this topic if you can help.. if I set my camera to record photos on a lower mp. 12 instead if 16 for example. Will my full image, no zoom, have less noise visible. What I am asking is, is it worth it. 6d and 6d2 appears to have exactly the same sensor and because 6d2 is more MP it has a bit more noise. Which if what I suggest is true means that if I use a 6d2 with lower MP I will have similar final results. Hope I do make sense, and find an answer :) cheers

[@matthewpollard4190]

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.

[@jammin023]

It's interesting that the amount of noise at low-ish ISOs on these dual-gain sensors is often higher than on single-gain sensors; presumably due to the extra circuitry. They are sacrificing quality around ISO 400 in order to get better high-ISO performance.

[@PaulKretz]

I just bought the ancient 5D classic (compliment to my T3i, SL2, 70D and 80D) to start my Full Frame journey and... *what the hell of a noise dance* on Photons to Photos chart! That's ridiculous! I should learn it (drops and rises in noise to ISO) by heart to get clean shots! The noise grows and drops steadily every single ISO stop! Unbelievable! Who could ever imagine?! Seems like you better shoot full stops and never use thirds (correct thirds in post with cleaner results if needed), right? On the other hand, the little beginner SL2, old T3i and 80D are almost totally consistent in rising noise alongside ISO... And 70D behaves more like 5DMI (with 2\3s of a stop shift, so it makes 160 cleaner than 100, crazy!) before its limit (3200) and after that it becomes consistent. Invaluable information! *Thanx so much! Gotta learn as long as we live!* Also nice, logical and pleasant is that *the newer cameras have really lower overall noise and FF still always wins* ! According to charts, of all my cameras the lower noise is on 5D classic, then the newest SL2, followed by older 80D, 70D and Ti3 correspondingly... This means the technology actually works and grows. Good and trustworthy. And the last but not least - *5DI is the cleanest of all 5Ds* ! 5DII and 5DIII have much more overall noise and only 5DIV drops down a little closer to 5DI levels. Fantastic!

[@kalali462]

I haven't seen the caution in a while, since it seems the technology now differs in that regard, but it was, indeed, even just a few years ago, the prevailing wisdom-that a partial stop lower in ISO tends to be worse than the full stop higher.

[@GlennPedersen]

You finally got everything correct, and corrected/pointed out the different of the test fstoppers did. We'll done Tony.

[@ScottWilder]

What the title should have been: Fstoppers don't know what they don't know. Great video

[@pattymattes7124]

F stoppers did do a reasonable test. I watched the video. Listen to what Tony said about how they were differing. It was the starting point that makes the difference. I suppose that is why Tony is explaining the gap.

[@ScottWilder]

@@pattymattes7124 I think before publishing results that differed from Tony's, it would have saved a lot of misunderstanding for fstoppers to reach out to Tony for comment.

[@pattymattes7124]

@@ScottWilder I don't think Fstoppers were out to discredit Tony and I don't think Tony is out to discredit Fstoppers. They both did testing. I found all their videos useful. I think you are taking offense at Fstoppers unnecessarily. It sounds, based on other comments I heard, that Tony is not upset at Fstoppers. Neither is Fstoppers upset at Tony. If Fstoppers didn't do their video this very one that Tony did may not have happened. Tony went on to say there was a difference in starting points. That is why Tony is explaining the gap.

[@ScottWilder]

@@pattymattes7124 I'm pretty sure I never suggested anyone was out to discredit anyone. I just tried to have a little fun with my original comment. But if you want to go down this road. FStoppers did a video to which came to a different result than Tony's did. Instead of trying to understand what was different in their methodology, FStoppers suggested that there may be a problem in Tony's methodology. I like both channels. But the more I watch FStoppers, the less I rely on them for any sort of meaningful gear testing. I think they should stick to their strength which is photo critiques and how-to guides.

[@kalali462]

​@@ScottWilder, not having "suggested a problem with Tony's methodology", Lee Morris of Fstoppers concluded correctly that Tony's statements in question are nearly but not fully true of the Nikon D850. Morris is correct that Tony's fake-ISO video overstates the scope of ISO invariance. Still, that doesn't mean that Tony's statements in question are wrong. Not exercises in deductive logic, most statements involving definitions and generalizations have probabilistic or approximate truth, not absolute and universal truth.

[@FinalManaTrigger]

Super useful! Going by the photons to photons chart, it's better to use ISO 800 than anything between 320-640 on my X-Pro2. I will put that into practice.

[@Thebrodelicious]

Keep in mind to cross reference it with the dynamic range chart on the same website.

[@FinalManaTrigger]

@@Thebrodelicious Thanks for that, looks like between 2/3-1 stop difference in dynamic range between ISO 320 and 800. Doesn't seem too bad. For DR critical work (like landscapes), I'd be using base ISO anyways.

[@RockstarBruski]

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.

[@nagol5178]

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.

[@JHuffPhoto]

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.