Quote from NR
“The Nikon Z9, Z8, Z6, Z7, and Zf cameras have dual gain ISO – this means it’s better to shoot at ISO 500 than at ISO 250, due to the wider dynamic range and less noise. This is a guest post by Dariusz Breś (Instagram | Facebook | Flickr | Previous posts):
The Nikon Z9, like most modern cameras, uses Dual Gain ISO technology. While different systems use different names (eg, Dual Native ISO or Dual Conversion Gain), the principle remains the same.”
This has been standard knowledge since dual gain has been a thing.
That said, I don’t find it worth worrying about in the real world. You will never have an image rendered unusable or materially worse because it was ISO 400 instead of 500.
RoamingScott wrote:
This has been standard knowledge since dual gain has been a thing.
That said, I don’t find it worth worrying about in the real world. You will never have an image rendered unusable or materially worse because it was ISO 400 instead of 500.
Idk why NR is making this a post now. Must be slow in the rumor mill lol
This isn't quite the whole story. While shadow noise is lower at ISO 500 than 400, for example, the tonal range (how many tones can be distinguished) and color sensitivity (how many colors can be distinguished from each other given the noise) are higher at ISO 400 than 500.
Quote from NR
“The Nikon Z9, Z8, Z6, Z7, and Zf cameras have dual gain ISO – this means it’s better to shoot at ISO 500 than at ISO 250, due to the wider dynamic range and less noise. This is a guest post by Dariusz Breś (Instagram | Facebook | Flickr | Previous posts):
The Nikon Z9, like most modern cameras, uses Dual Gain ISO technology. While different systems use different names (eg, Dual Native ISO or Dual Conversion Gain), the principle remains the same.”
ilkka_nissila wrote:
This isn't quite the whole story. While shadow noise is lower at ISO 500 than 400, for example, the tonal range (how many tones can be distinguished) and color sensitivity (how many colors can be distinguished from each other given the noise) are higher at ISO 400 than 500.
These are the hang-wringing concerns of people that need to get away from their editing station more.
It used to be that knowledge was valued, but then internet forums came into being.
The point I am trying to make is that it is incorrect to say that iso 500 image quality is categorically better than 320 or 400; it is not. If it were better in every way, the manufacturers would simply omit those ISO settings to optimize the image quality for the user. But Nikon and the other still camera manufacturers don't do this because they understand that dynamic range is just one parameter and rather a fringe one for most photos since the output medium usually has much less dynamic range than the camera. So they leave those intermediate ISO settings in because they give better midtones and highlights than the second base ISO does. Do these differences matter? They are small differences and may not be important to most uses (neither are the DR differences all that important). But my main point really is that it would be a mistake to avoid the intermediate ISO settings in belief that the image quality is worse than the second base ISO, unless you have very specific needs for the image.
Most people these days use Auto ISO which does use all the ISO steps and the user does not have any way of excluding the ISO settings between the two base ISOs. There are good reasons for this and there is no reason for the user to go out of the way to avoid intermediate ISO settings unless for a very specific purpose and type of image and application. E.g. they might choose the second base ISO for astrolandscape images. That makes perfect sense to do.
RoamingScott wrote:
These are the hang-wringing concerns of people that need to get away from their editing station more.
It isn’t the only reason intermediate ISO’s are included, another is exposure value. If it jumped from 64 to 500, three stops, then f-stop or shutter speed would be the only other parameters to balance exposure which would compromise DoF and/or motion blur control.
As I always say, aperture and shutter speed are the only things that matter in terms of how you actively shape a photo...the ISO is completely irrelevant, only until it becomes so high that it is irrevocably ruining crucial details that can't be recovered in post.
This is NEVER going to happen between dual gain values.
You will be sacrificing full control of at least half of the levers you have at your disposal to shape your image, for what...chasing some imaginary dragon's tail?
