1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

D300 Shooting @ ISO 50

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR Forum' started by pixelharmony, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. How many D300 users find themselves shooting at either the ISO 50?

    Is there any difference from 200 to 100 to 50?
  2. pforsell


    Jan 15, 2008
    D300 does not have ISO 50 AFAIK. The settings are:
    • LO -0.3 (~ ISO 160)
    • LO -0.5 (~ISO 140)
    • LO -0.7 (~ ISO 125)
    • LO -1.0 (~ISO 100)
  3. Unless I'm mistaken this was off the Nikon website

    Low-noise files at ISO from 200-3200; The D300's DX-format CMOS sensor, with a high signal-to-noise ratio, empowers photographers to produce exceptionally clean files from a broad 200-3200 ISO range. Expanded range of options include Lo-1(ISO 50 equivalent) and Hi-1(ISO 6400 equivalent).

  4. Wail


    Aug 14, 2007
    Saudi Arabia
    Interesting find, pixelharmony! Dare I say there may be a mistake on the Nikon site? Everything I've read about the D300 states that it's able to go to ISO 100 equivalent. This is the first time I read about it being able to do ISO 50!
  5. Yea 50 is kind of extreme, I was always wondering if that was negligible either way.
  6. Here's what the D300 manual says on page 97:

    "The settings [LO 0.3] through [LO 1] correspond to ISO sensitivities 0.3 - 1 EV below ISO 200 (ISO 160-100 equivalent)."
  7. Must be a typo on the website, hopefully ISO 6400 works.
  8. Triggaaar


    Jun 15, 2008
    Shouldn't be difficult to test, stick it on a tripod, fixed lighting and aperture, and test the shutter speed.
  9. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    No, ISO 6400 does not work, nor does ISO 3200. These are pseudo (fake) ISOs, created by numerical adjustments from the ISO 1600 values.

    They are useful for JPEG (it is like a +1 or +2 EV adjustment in the raw processing), but they are counterproductive with raw data, for they are reducing the dynamic range by one respectively two stops.
  10. ^ Interesting, I didn't know that.

    Then would shooting @ 1600 in RAW and then exposing +2 yield a better result than .jpg shot at 6400?
  11. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    (I guess this "then exposing +2" means "increasing the intensity in raw conversion by 2 EV".)

    Two independent issue are mixed here.

    1. Raw is usually (though not always) better than JPEG if you know how to process it.

    2. Raw shot @ 1600, underexposed two stops yields the same as shot @ 6400, if the intensity is increased in raw processing. The differences are:

    a. the preview of the underexposed shot is much darker (this affects the in-camera display as well),

    b. the dynamic range is two stops lower if shot @ 6400, because the highlights are cut off. One could think that this does not matter, because if there is not enough light, then there are no highlights either, but this is often not so. Even in a very dark scenery often there are brighter parts, like a lighted window, around a street light, etc. These can be blown @ 6400, because the +2 EV pushes out two extra stops of the DR.

    Note, that each ISO increase of one stop pushes out one stop of the highlights, but a real ISO gains something in the shadows.

    I don't know if ISO 2000 is real, I have not seen any such raw file yet.
  12. nicktak


    Jul 30, 2006
    ISO 3200 is real

    I thought that only applied to HI.1 (6400) etc

    ISO3200 is an actual valid ISO on the D300.
  13. Then on the flipside, is there processing done to simulate ISO 100?

    I've never noticed anything from 100-200 even on my 40D so this is neglible. But sometimes when I was to shoot wide open outdoors the light can get a bit much I have to get the lowest ISO possible (originally why I thought 50 was awesome on the D300... should've reasearched that more)
  14. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    What is valid? You can select them, so they are valid. However, there is no separate ISO gain associated with 3200; the pixel values are calculated from those of ISO 1600.
  15. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    If you post two raw files (use yousendit.com), one with ISO 100, the other with ISO 200, the same scenery, same aperture, etc., only the shutter different, I take a look at ISO 100. It has to be 14bit, non-lossy (it should be compressed for size).
  16. FusionZ06


    Jul 25, 2008
    I did some sample testing today with my 50 f/1.8 and noticed that on the low ISO settings you lose some crispness.
  17. That's interesting. Even on a Canon 40D I could shoot @ 100 without using ISO expansion (lo). I never really noticed any difference.
  18. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    What is interesting? That shooting with larger aperture and/or longer shutter makes an image less "crispy" than with small aperture, short shutter time?

    ISO 100 on the 40D is "normal", not an expansion ISO.
  19. Interesting that he found ISO 100 to be less cripsy. But I guess without given the right exif we can't make any conclusions.

    But if he's on manual and shoots @ 1.8 ISO 100 @ 1/4000 and the same @ ISO 200 @ 1/8000 I believe that's a negligible variable.

    But when you say on a 40D ISO 100 is Normal, but for a D300 ISO 100 is not a real ISO gain? Or does that only work with ISO's above 1600?
  20. Panopeeper

    Panopeeper Guest

    That's right, but I don't believe FusionZ06's claim, that the loss of crispiness had been caused by the lower ISO.

    I did not say, that ISO 100 on the D300 is not real. I said if you deliver two images (as I described above), I can try to determine that from the images.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.