p.19 #2 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
By the way there are lots of uses beside landscapes for base ISO. Anytime you have adequate shutter speed and enough light to shoot at base ISO you should. For example, I almost always shoot outdoor portraits at base ISO. When I shoot on a tripod, whether it is macro, landscapes, or architecture I almost always shoot at base ISO as well. Here are five of my favorite shots all shot at base ISO none of which are landscapes.
That’s a great set, Steve, and that first image espoecially is compelling!
Oct 08, 2025 at 10:36 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.19 #3 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
At ISO 500 there is not difference between the Z8/Z9 and D750. I would have thought it would be obvious that if you shoot the Z8/Z9 at ISO 500 rather than ISO 400, which you should if you care about DR as ISO 500 has higher DR than ISO 400 on those cameras, so if you can shoot at ISO 400 as in your shots, then you can shoot at ISO 500 with the Z8 or Z9 and only lose a quarter of a stop to the D750 and rather ironically for your argument that is the one ISO (500) in which the Z8/Z9 outperforms that A1 II, so in your shots at ISO 500 you would have been better off with a Z8 or Z9 in terms of DR and if you care so much about DR then you really should have turned the ISO up on your A1 II to 640 where that camera has higher DR than at ISO 500.
p.19 #4 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
By the way there are lots of uses beside landscapes for base ISO. Anytime you have adequate shutter speed and enough light to shoot at base ISO you should. For example, I almost always shoot outdoor portraits at base ISO. When I shoot on a tripod, whether it is macro, landscapes, or architecture I almost always shoot at base ISO as well. Here are five of my favorite shots all shot at base ISO none of which are landscapes.
Nice shots Steve. I will shoot base ISO when I can (and i have a custom button set for it).
However, it’s uncommon to be able to shoot at base ISO when the subject involves action.
Notice your samples are mostly still life, and there's one posed portrait.
I did shoot this young cheetah at ISO 100 in Africa... its possible but uncommon to be at base ISO 100 with this kind of subject
Oct 08, 2025 at 10:44 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.19 #5 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Ross Martin wrote:
That’s a great set, Steve, and that first image espoecially is compelling!
Thank you Ross and some of those I even got by with the crappy DR of the 5D MK II. I appreciate the ease of processing that higher DR can sometimes bring compared to that camera, but even with that camera I never had a shot ruined at base ISO because of too little DR. I of course ruined lots of pictures, for other reasons, however, bad focus, too slow of shutter speed, poor composition, etc.
p.19 #6 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
At ISO 500 there is not difference between the Z8/Z9 and D750. I would have thought it would be obvious that if you shoot the Z8/Z9 at ISO 500 rather than ISO 400, which you should if you care about DR as ISO 500 has higher DR than ISO 400 on those cameras, so if you can shoot at ISO 400 as in your shots, then you can shoot at ISO 500 with the Z8 or Z9 and only lose a quarter of a stop to the D750 and rather ironically for your argument that is the one ISO (500) in which the Z8/Z9 outperforms that A1 II, so in your shots at ISO 500 you would have been better off with a Z8 or Z9 in terms of DR and if you care so much about DR then you really should have turned the ISO up on your A1 II to 640 where that camera has higher DR than at ISO 500....Show more →
Yeah but these shots are not on the A1ii so I did not shoot at ISO 640 on purpose
Second base ISO on the A7IV is precisely ISO 400 that's why there are so many ISO 400 shots
I did shoot this young cheetah at ISO 100 in Africa... its possible but uncommon to be at base ISO 100 with this kind of subject
The portrait wasn't posed. It was when my son was six and he has ADHD and never sat still let alone posed at that age. I happened to catch him at just the right moment in his not stop movement. There were many more misses that evening but I did manage that one shot that I really like.
I do agree that wildlife is rarely shot at base ISO largely because long lenses with narrower apertures in terms of f/number are often used. Even a 600 f/4 which is a fast lens for wildlife requires a lot of light for exposure. Fast shutter speeds are also often necessary to freeze fast movements, so yeah base ISO often isn't an option.
p.19 #8 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Steve Spencer wrote:
I find the colors subtle and a strong part of Ross' shot. I don't see what you don't like about them.
Cant say for sure without looking at the raw file, but detail may not hold up when printed A3 / A2 / A1 and will look odd (to me) when its on the wall with other shots that have much higher detail
I also like more saturated colors haha
I mentioned this before, I do have some shots with poor detail on the wall (out of an iPhone).
One of the reasons (for me) to carry a camera around, is so a higher % of shots which capture the right moment will have good detail and color.
p.19 #10 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
I see no rationale for not following the industry standard which is to define sensors by the best DR they can deliver.
Besides, there is zero reason to compare DR at ISO 100 as has been pointed out. Nobody uses ISO100 on a Z8/Z9. Sometimes auto-ISO can randomly hit ISO 100 but that is rare and even so the DR is still good enough for most applications.
Either you use base ISO of 64 for applications in which the shutter speed is not constrained or typically much higher ISOs for moving subjects.
The only reason I can think of why one would want to focus on ISO100 would be to artificially demonstrate that one camera with good ISO100 DR is superior to another one that was not optimized for ISO100 because it has a lower base ISO. But nobody would want to do that right? It would make no sense at all because it would not be related to the actual usage of the cameras.
At least we should be happy that Nikon cameras and most Sony cameras (except the a9III) are not applying any NR to their low ISO raw files, which is something that Canon does since the R5/R6.
p.19 #11 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
bernardl wrote:
Besides, there is zero reason to compare DR at ISO 100 as has been pointed out. Nobody uses ISO100 on a Z8/Z9. Sometimes auto-ISO can randomly hit ISO 100 but that is rare and even so the DR is still good enough for most applications.
While I agree with you that the common way to compare DR is at base ISO*), this discussion ignores the elephant in the room. To quote photonstophotos: "Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value." In other words, we do not even know the actual ISO of these two cameras when set to their base ISO settings. From various reports this is inconsistent among manufacturers and even between cameras, with differences of even an entire stop being observed.
Which still leaves the question why the Nikon's have (slightly) less DR at base ISO. I rather doubt it is a higher level of read noise. One alternate explanation may be differences in the sensor stack. Could differences in translucency of the filters (see e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4315294) or micro lenses with less effective coverage (see e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63571921).
*) I virtually never shoot at base ISO as my subjects move. Hence I'm much more interested in comparisons at identical exposures.
p.19 #12 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
Daran wrote:
While I agree with you that the common way to compare DR is at base ISO*), this discussion ignores the elephant in the room. To quote photonstophotos: "Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value." In other words, we do not even know the actual ISO of these two cameras when set to their base ISO settings. From various reports this is inconsistent among manufacturers and even between cameras, with differences of even an entire stop being observed.
Which still leaves the question why the Nikon's have (slightly) less DR at base ISO. I rather doubt it is a higher level of read noise. One alternate explanation may be differences in the sensor stack. Could differences in translucency of the filters (see e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4315294) or micro lenses with less effective coverage (see e.g. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63571921).
*) I virtually never shoot at base ISO as my subjects move. Hence I'm much more interested in comparisons at identical exposures....Show more →
It would be the elephant in the room if we had evidence of significant differences btwn ISO setting and actual one. And although there may be small ones I never noticed anything significant btwn Nikon, Sony and Fuji. It’s a non issue.
I shoot both landscape and action so I agree that high ISO DR is important also, typically above ISO1600.
p.19 #14 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
The switch to Nikon has been fun and challenging. Overall, I love how the Nikons handle and the lenses are excellent. I do miss the Sony 14mm GM and the 20-70mm (which I may reacquire, if I decide I can put up with the distortion in the viewfinder.) I could not give up my favorite Sony lens, the 135mm GM, which works splendidly on the Megadap.
Looking forward to a couple upcoming trips, as I'm finally feeling quite comfortable with the gear.
In the meantime, here's a few that I like.
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S lens85mmf/1.81/1000s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 7_2FE 135mm F1.8 GM lens135mmf/1.81/160s110 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8FE 135mm F1.8 GM lens135mmf/1.81/400s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 24-120mm f/4 S lens50mmf/4.01/640s64 ISO+0.7 EV
NIKON Z 8FE 28-60mm F4-5.6 lens28mmf/6.31/200s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S lens85mmf/1.81/4000s64 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 8NIKKOR Z 50mm f/1.8 S lens50mmf/1.81/1000s64 ISO0.0 EV
p.19 #15 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
I'm glad that this string finally got back on track. I have both Nikon and Sony stuff and would like to consolidate but doubt I will be able to. The Z8 with 600PF and 24-120 are so good, it is hard to drop out of the system. The Sony 16-35GM II, 300 GM and the 400-800 would make it hard to drop the Sony system.
Really wish Sony could replicate the 24-120 Nikon for IQ, and come out with a light weight 500mm f4. That would seal the deal.
p.19 #17 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
@MikeEvangelist how do you find the Z7II compared to the Z8? I keep thinking of picking one up to go with my Z8, but I wonder if I will find it to slow (AF / playback responsiveness) after getting spoiled by the Z8.
p.19 #18 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
billsnature wrote:
The Sony 16-35GM II, 300 GM and the 400-800 would make it hard to drop the Sony system.
Similar. For me, it's the 16-35GM II, 28-70 f2, and 400-800mm that are making it hard for me to just fully commit back to Nikon Z. Those 3 lenses, along with the Sigma 300-600mm f4, are the 4 lenses that interest me the most to add to my kit. But I do enjoy Nikon's cameras better.
The Sigma 300-600 is a strange one because spec wise it would be perfect for me, but it's not available on Z mount and Sony's restrictions of 15FPS and no TC (especially) hurt its appeal. I put these silly limitations into the bucket of why I prefer Nikon cameras better.
The Sony a7v, though, is looking very appealing. While I still think I will end up preferring my Z8 more, I do think it will resolve a lot of what I don't prefer about Sony Cameras. I may very well end up with a7v and 400-800mm in the spring if Nikon does not put out something tempting, such as a 28-70 f2 first. I pretty much sat on the sidelines gear wise for 2025, seeing what Nikon and Sony will put out, and I do want to make some upgrades in 2026.
p.19 #19 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
billsnature wrote:
The Sony 16-35GM II, 300 GM and the 400-800 would make it hard to drop the Sony system.
I would expand on this and say that all E-mount lenses, in general, make it impossible to transition to anything else. In addition to your favorites, there's the entire f/1.4 GM line of primes which Nikon can't compete with, the ultra-compact G-line of primes, and all Sigma lenses, many of them unique, like the 105mm macro art, which none of Z-mount macros can compete with.
Even 3rd party manufacturers who offer Z-mount lenses have wider selection for E, like the Voigtlander primes. Only a small subset of them are available for the Z mount.
Nikon should bundle Megadap ETZ with all of their bodies.
p.19 #20 · After 13 years of all Sony, I'm trying Nikon
DWOfPaul wrote:
@MikeEvangelist@ how do you find the Z7II compared to the Z8? I keep thinking of picking one up to go with my Z8, but I wonder if I will find it to slow (AF / playback responsiveness) after getting spoiled by the Z8.
I bought the Z7ii as a general carry-around camera, where speed of focus and FPS aren't particularly important (to me). I love its size and sensor. And the prices on used Z7iis are quite low (~$1300), as all the attention is on the newer, shinier things. I also like that it has more traditional user memories, rather than the banks of the Z8, which I find cumbersome (and not all that useful).
The Z8 I use for the cases where speed is a priority (events and birds).
that's why there are so many ISO 400 shots
