>>4309628
Its not.
It should be iso 25

ISO 100 is where you start to lose detail to grain texture.
Lower than ISO 100 and you start to see softness in images, dynamic range below 100 tends to be sketchy, your shadow details get muddy.

100 and 400 were seen as the standard with film cameras because 100 was for optimal sunny conditions and 400 was recoverable for most other conditions.

Glorious ISO 64 in Nikon is better than 100 in all situations.

>>4309628
Iso 200 for digital cameras not made by liars

>>4309636
most ISOs are overrated actually, ie iso 100 = 70 on sony and canon, 50 on olympus and fuji

nikon’s native iso 64 is actually 50

Auto 100-20k is best on sony

File: IMG_20240226_200010.jpg (3.3 MB, 5472x3648)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4309628
usually go for 400-800 because I'm a gittery caffeine goblin and I like my shitter fast

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	NX2000
Camera Software	1.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	308 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:26 20:00:05
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5472
Image Height	3648
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: GigaChad-1.jpg (241 KB, 400x400)

241 KB JPG

>>4309628
whatever I need to shoot at the shutter speed I want to shoot at with the aperture I want to shoot at

>>4309628
my D1H only go 200-1600
one migh complaint also lack of resolution, but it is what it is

>>4309781
There are far more legitimate criticisms of the D1 series than the resolution.

>>4309628
I've come around to your way of thinking, OP.
Motion blur ruins an image worse than noise. And modern cameras look amazing at high ISO.
Minimum shutter speed = 1/200
ISO = unlimited
If it's dark, and you're shooting a still scene, just swap to M mode.

>>4309812
>And modern cameras look amazing at high ISO.
SOOC noise reduction doesn't handle the color fog
Capture one doesn't handle the color fog
Lightroom handles the color fog but it also totally destroys color at every ISO unless you turn all its bullshit down, then it doesn't handle the color fog, also lightroom "grain" is super fucking oversharpened and looks like ultrashit

>>4309828
Sorry you're having a bad time
SOOC looks fine to me, and everyone outside of 4chan

>>4309833
Everyone outside of 4chan is a non-autistic rube that literally cant comprehend fine details. Their normie brain heuristics filter everything not relevant to their goals out. Hence they worshipped the autists for so much of history they came to use a mispronounced version of "autist" for people who could recreate the flawless beauty of creation - "artist".

File: shrek-snap.gif (3.19 MB, 498x365)

3.19 MB GIF

>>4309628
I see no problems

>>4309812

different user, different preferences, 1/60 - x is the ideal range, my coolpix would be near perfect with 1/60s auto iso firmware update

>>4309628
Metering set to -0.5 or -1
ISO: Auto
This is actually the proper way to photograph.

Remember, there's no such thing as a correct ISO. It's not film. It's just electrical gain applied during readout. The electronics can ETTR better than you can fiddling with ISO 100 vs 140 or 200, and on certain devices like phones you can use ISO 46/47/48/49/50/51/52/53/54/55/56.../411/412/413 as needed.
ISO is amplification applied during the digitization process, "proper" (autismo tier accurate) ISO is key to minimizing the effects of visible noise.

Sticking to ISO 100 when a shot calls for slightly more (like 1/3 of a stop) actually degrades quality.
Set EV steps to 1/3 or 1/4 or whatever your camera is capable of and let it handle that bit automatically. Adjust shutter/aperture to get it's "auto" ISO setting as low as it can go, there's no reason to manually control ISO outside of planned photography like setting it on a copystand/tripod and lighting your scene accordingly. In the real world, AUTO ISO is quite literally almost always the best setting. Don't let "iso invariant" retards fool you, there is no such thing.

>>4309893
>no such thing as a correct ISO
didn't have to read that far to tl;dr the rest

>>4309896
The manufacturers lie about their setting all the time, even if you use a light meter the systems are designed to fool you.
ISO is not a real standard anymore with digital, so there are no correct values anymore.

>>4309904
>Le manufacturers lie
Have you ever actually looked it up?

Sony/canon/nikon ISOs are all about 1/3 of a stop slower than the film standard is meant to be, barely anything

Only fuji/olympus/panasonic are further off than that (2/3-1 stops slower than stated), because they mostly sell crop sensors and mislabeling ISO makes it easier for the marketing liars to say they have good dynamic range.

>>4309893
>There is no such thing as ISO
Not in dual gain cameras. They have two gain circuits that have different shadow recovery characteristics.
>Sticking to ISO 100 when a shot calls for slightly more (like 1/3 of a stop) actually degrades quality.
No it doesn't because 1/3 of a stop more ISO is within that gain stage, only aperture and shutter speed actually control how much light you get into the camera. That becomes a question when you're choosing say, ISO 200 or 400 on a camera where the second gain stage kicks in between 200 and 400. Then shoot at the second base ISO and you get less noise. If you recover shadows past the second base ISO it also typically looks a bit worse than just shooting at that ISO but who the fuck would recover more than 3 stops of exposure

For some reason one day I woke up and just stopped giving a shit about noise. 400? 800? 1600? Fuck it, we ball. Too noisy? Shrink the image by 20% in post. Looks fine. Fuck the police. Way more important to have a sharp/stable image. Push that shutter speed to the fucking moon. Push it. Force it. Make it your bitch.

>>4309954
Did the same thing
One morning I woke up, glued 4 handfuls of sand to a pair of sunglasses, and walked around wearing them so I could truly immerse myself in the best visual experience man has to offer.

File: 1711818768947498.jpg (112 KB, 795x720)

112 KB JPG

>>4309736
>>4309812
>>4309954
Holy mother of based.

Now that ISO invariance is a thing there is no reason (except jpegs) to change ISO on the camera rather than shooting at 100 and pushing 6 stops in post. You're just throwing away headroom for no benefit. I don't know why they don't just make ISO an exif field that tells your RAW program to push it rather than changing the actual pixel values.
>>4309893
>The electronics can ETTR better than you can fiddling with ISO
They could, but they don't because camera manufacturers are stuck in this dumb "muh jay pegs must look good" mindset. It would be so easy with mirrorless, you're reading off the whole frame anyway, you could just find the brightest pixel and adjust exposure so that the brightest channel is at 2^14 or whatever the max pixel value is. Nikon even has a mode that claims to do this ("highlight-weighted metering") but I've caught it both over and underexposing the raw files presumably to make the jpegs look better.