{"id":16,"date":"2014-03-08T23:55:06","date_gmt":"2014-03-08T22:55:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/?p=16"},"modified":"2024-03-02T19:39:39","modified_gmt":"2024-03-02T19:39:39","slug":"645d-iso-100-vs-200","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/645d-iso-100-vs-200\/","title":{"rendered":"645D: ISO 100 vs ISO 200"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Today was my second day shooting with the Pentax 645D. We\u2019re still getting to know eachother. I found out the electronic level is not level (as I suspected the first day already). Since I\u2019m not the only Pentax user experiencing this it probably is behaviour by design, I\u2019ll just put my bubble level in my back pack.<\/p>\n<p>After these few extra hours of usage I\u2019m thinking that the Pentax might actually be a bit easier to focus than my old Canon 1Ds II. When focusing quite close the big viewfinder helps, the few portraits I shot were all tack sharp on the closest eye (@ f\/2.8). With greater distances or flat surfaces that are harder to focus some detail that is there seems to \u201cpop\u201d in and out of focus more clearly than I was used to with the Canon.<\/p>\n<p>But what I really wanted to find out was this ISO 100 versus ISO 200 business, so I shot three series of four test shots: first a correct exposure at ISO 200, then I set the camera to ISO 100 and halved the shutterspeed for the second photo (shutter stays open twice as long, should yield the same exposure). Then I shot two more on ISO 100 increasing the shutterspeed by 1\/3rd stop each, trying to find out whether it actually was ISO 125 or ISO 160. Here\u2019s one, all four photos taken at f\/10:<\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_17\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-17\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-17\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0150-200-10-100.jpg\" alt=\"ISO 200 1\/100\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-17\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">ISO 200 1\/100<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"attachment_18\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-18\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-18\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0151-100-10-50.jpg\" alt=\"ISO 100 1\/50\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-18\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">ISO 100 1\/50<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"attachment_19\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-19\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-19\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0152-100-10-60.jpg\" alt=\"ISO 100 1\/60\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-19\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">ISO 100 1\/60<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<figure id=\"attachment_20\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-20\" style=\"width: 1024px\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-20\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0153-100-10-80.jpg\" alt=\"ISO 100 1\/80\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-20\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">ISO 100 1\/80<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>In my book a shutterspeed of 1\/100 on ISO 200 is the same as 1\/50 on ISO 100 exposure wise, all else being equal. This is clearly not the case, in stead the exposures look about the same with 1\/60 for the ISO 100, which indicates it is actually ISO 125. All three series pointed to ISO 125. Good to know.<\/p>\n<p>I couldn\u2019t find any obvious evidence of reduced dynamic range in ISO 100. It might be there but with my eyes using photoshop at 200% inspecting the lightest and the darkest parts I couldn\u2019t see it. Looking at noise: ISO 200 seems to have slightly more (I had thought there would be no difference for ISO 100 is part of the extended range).<\/p>\n<p>It is an absolute pleasure to take photographs with the Pentax and to review them at home on the computer. The sharpness is stunning. This is hard to show. I have looked at countless photographs with some detail shown bigger and still didn\u2019t think the photographs would be _this_ sharp. But here\u2019s mine.<\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-21\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0117-Gazelle.jpg\" alt=\"Gazelle\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><\/p>\n<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-22\" src=\"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/20140308_IGP0117-Gazelle-detail.jpg\" alt=\"Gazelle - detail\" width=\"1024\" height=\"767\"><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Pentax 645D has a native ISO of 200, but it can be used at 100. But is it really 100? And has it less noise? Don\u2019t believe it until you see it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1112,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-medium-format-digital","category-pentax-645d"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3208,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16\/revisions\/3208"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joerivanveen.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}