Is it common for digital cameras to have an ISO lower than 100 as a possibility? Is that even a thing?
I have a Canon, and the lowest I can go is ISO 100
I have a Canon, and the lowest I can go is ISO 100
Lower ISO than 100?
- Thread starter JacksonChar
- Start date
I believe that my Canon S95 goes down to ISO 80, which is a great help here in crazy bright Southern California.
My little Panasonic Lumix LX-3 goes down to 80, but interestingly my Nikon D2x only goes down to 100. I usually use around 200 for most stuff.
As David says, lots of modern cameras only go down to ISO 100. In fact, the default setting for my D700 is ISO200 which is not such a problem because I can always use a very fast shutter speed to control exposure. There is a setting which allows me to use a lower ISO, but the image quality is not improved so it makes no sense at all.
Shooting film in my medium-format camera is another story altogether. The fastest shutter speed which I have available is 1/500 sec, so I should carry a Neutral Density filter on bright days.
Shooting film in my medium-format camera is another story altogether. The fastest shutter speed which I have available is 1/500 sec, so I should carry a Neutral Density filter on bright days.
100 seems to be the standard low-ISO setting for digital cameras, and some of the new ones don't even go that low. Use a neutral density filter if you really need less than 100--a situation that only comes up rarely.
Some Manufacturers offer a Extended ISO option. I think that the Canon 5dmk 2 goes to ISO 60 or 80. Pentax k5 goes to ISO 80 in extended range.
If you use modes such as shadow correction or highlight correction, that will also affect how low your ISO will go.
-----Stoge
If you use modes such as shadow correction or highlight correction, that will also affect how low your ISO will go.
-----Stoge
My Canon will go down to ISO 50, but it is an "expanded iso" and must be activated in the menu. The lowest standard setting is ISO 100.
Last edited:
I really miss Kodachrome 25 and 64......
Back in the day, I used to use Panatomic-X and Agfapan 25, which had ISO ratings of 32 and 25 respectively. ISO (which I believe was originally a compound rating of both ASA and DIN, then just overwriting ASA) is a theoretical rating of light-sensitivity. ISO 6, 12, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, etc. are all one-stop differences in sensitivity. So let's say your digital camera's lowest ISO setting is 100. You set your light-meter to this, and it tells you that a given exposure is 1/2 second @ f22 (time to haul out a tripod and RC shutter release); but you want to shoot at ISO 25, which would require a setting of 2 seconds @ f22. Well, does your light-meter have one of those exposure adjustment settings that move from -2, -1, 0, +1, +2? If so, setting the exposure adjustment to -2 would actually change your ISO setting from 100 to 25 (although the camera's meter would still say it was set to 100). Likewise, setting it to +2 would actually change it from 100 to 400 (with the camera's meter still saying 100). Beyond this, neutral density filters will bring down the effective ISO in a similar fashion without affecting the color.
Hope this helps.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
We used to shoot a lot of Fuji Velvia 50, which we used to pull and rate around 40 ISO. It's kind of nice not having to lug a tripod with me everywhere now...
Nice thing about tripods, IMO, is that they allow you to really hold still and concentrate on the scene's composition. Of all the variables at play, this is at least one less, especially if you are striving for perspective correction with every shot. But then again, it all depends on what you are trying to photograph, doesn't it.
It does, especially with perspective correction.
But if you have ever had to get a Mamiya RZ67 kit + a big Gitzo tripod home with a busted ankle. (Long story)...
Personally, I still don't own an image stabilised lens, but I can see the joy in them.
Last edited:
As far as I know, the lowest ISO of camera's is related to the sensor's output without amplification (if that makes any sense). Pocket size camera's generally go lower than DSLR's.
I have a Pentax K-5 DSLR. The ISO ranges goes from 80 to 51,000 something. It's quite a range. The K-5 is a interchangeable lens , digital single lens reflex.
I use ISO 80, usually with my lens set at around F 8, when there is a lot of light. As many know, ISO and shutter speed are inter related and although lower ISO numbers provide better potential image quality, one always must keep in mind that you need to couple the low ISO with a reasonable shutter speed to avoid blur.
I usually use my wide angle 12 to 24 mm Zoom lens at this ISO when taking pics of vintage vehicles. Given the right lighting conditions, an appropriate F stop and shutter speed... the low ISO of 80 or so can really provide excellent quality photos.
I use ISO 80, usually with my lens set at around F 8, when there is a lot of light. As many know, ISO and shutter speed are inter related and although lower ISO numbers provide better potential image quality, one always must keep in mind that you need to couple the low ISO with a reasonable shutter speed to avoid blur.
I usually use my wide angle 12 to 24 mm Zoom lens at this ISO when taking pics of vintage vehicles. Given the right lighting conditions, an appropriate F stop and shutter speed... the low ISO of 80 or so can really provide excellent quality photos.
I recall Kodachrome ASA 10.
That was long before any kind of automation.
One used the Sunny 16 rule or a light meter.
Why do you want to go lower than 100 ASA/ISO?
If you want very long exposures you can always use neutral density filters, stacked if necessary.
Even a polarizing filter will cut your speed in half.
I am not convinced that reducing your ASA/ISO below 100 will improve the picture quality.
What it will do unless you use impractically long exposures is lose a lot of detail in the shadow areas and reduce your depth of field.
If you are trying to avoid burn out in the highlight areas just under expose a little. You will get more detail in the highlights and still retain an amazing amount of detail in the shadows without them blocking up.
My Pentax K-5 remains set at -2 stops. My ISO/ASA will vary from 100 to, reluctantly, as high as lighting conditions demand.
It is usually set at 400 which is as good a quality or better than film (C41) of 200.
Mickey
That was long before any kind of automation.
One used the Sunny 16 rule or a light meter.
Why do you want to go lower than 100 ASA/ISO?
If you want very long exposures you can always use neutral density filters, stacked if necessary.
Even a polarizing filter will cut your speed in half.
I am not convinced that reducing your ASA/ISO below 100 will improve the picture quality.
What it will do unless you use impractically long exposures is lose a lot of detail in the shadow areas and reduce your depth of field.
If you are trying to avoid burn out in the highlight areas just under expose a little. You will get more detail in the highlights and still retain an amazing amount of detail in the shadows without them blocking up.
My Pentax K-5 remains set at -2 stops. My ISO/ASA will vary from 100 to, reluctantly, as high as lighting conditions demand.
It is usually set at 400 which is as good a quality or better than film (C41) of 200.
Mickey
Last edited:
I think either 80 or 100 ISO will provide the best photo quality, in terms of clarity, detail, etc....but that's just my opinion. I recall using ...think it was Kodachrome ASA 25 slide film back in the film days.
I only use 80 to 100 in bright sunlight. I agree with you and do the same thing pretty well...as you do and indicated ..."My ISO/ASA will vary from 100 to, reluctantly, as high as lighting conditions demand."
I do start at 80 though. I find my K-5 doesn't show much trace of noise (or grain as we used to say) until much higher in the ISO range than any other camera I've used.
Technology is amazing for a guy like me that first started with a Pentax S1a SLR and a hand held light meter....back in 1968.
I only use 80 to 100 in bright sunlight. I agree with you and do the same thing pretty well...as you do and indicated ..."My ISO/ASA will vary from 100 to, reluctantly, as high as lighting conditions demand."
I do start at 80 though. I find my K-5 doesn't show much trace of noise (or grain as we used to say) until much higher in the ISO range than any other camera I've used.
Technology is amazing for a guy like me that first started with a Pentax S1a SLR and a hand held light meter....back in 1968.
Similar threads
