Is it true that the best images from all digital cameras can be obtained at ISO 200?

Question

Recently a very professional photographer who shoots stunning pictures told me that the best images can be obtained from digital cameras at ISO 200. He also stated that this is what all the manufacturers (Nikon, Sony, Canon, ...) say.

He explained it something like this (I heavily paraphrase as my amateur brain does not remember the correct technical terms used): The light is taken in by the sensor as is at ISO 200. At higher values the signal is amplified (which I understand is correct). At lower values like 100 however, the signal is artificially diminished, which leads to bleeding(?) of the pixels. Therefore ISO lower than 200 is only to be used for extreme lighting situations like shooting a solar eclipse.

However, I could not find any information corroborating these claims. I also checked a couple manuals of high-end DSLRs. They did not contain any mention of such a manufacturer's recommendation. I also took some comparison shots with my own digital camera (Lumix) and found ISO 100 to produce better, lower-noise results.

Now I'm at a loss as what to make of that man's statement?

Answer 1

The information your friend gave you was essentially correct for most digital cameras, particularly compact digital cameras with very small sensors, made about 15-20 years ago. Digital imaging sensors were more primitive and noise reduction techniques were less sophisticated. By placing the native sensitivity of a sensor at one stop higher than what otherwise might be desired (typically ISO 100), the camera could have a wider 'usable' ISO range at very little detriment to the ISO setting one stop below the native sensitivity of the sensor. In exchange for a little less dynamic range at ISO 100 a sensor with a native sensitivity of ISO 200 could gain a stop of sensitivity on the higher end with regard to dynamic range versus the noise floor.

Such is not the case with most current dedicated cameras. There is more variety with regard to native ISO among current cameras, but most of them have a native sensitivity somewhere in the neighborhood of ISO 100. This is particularly the case with the current crop of APS-C and full frame cameras.

Once ingrained in a particular culture, such as professional photographers, some ideas are hard to modify when the current state of technology makes those ideas outdated and in need of modification if not outright obsolete.

Look, for example, at Image Stabilization. When the IS lenses for interchangeable lens SLR cameras first began appearing in the second half of the 1990s, there was an issue with vibration feedback loops when the camera and lens were mounted on a tripod. Vibration from the IS unit would cause the camera to vibrate, which would induce correction from the IS unit, which would cause vibration, which would induce correction from the IS unit, which would cause vibration... By the year 2000 pretty much every lens manufacturer had upgraded their IS technology to automatically turn off IS when the camera was detected to be mounted on a tripod. Some lenses have even appeared on the scene that have IS profiles specifically designed to be used with a tripod. Yet more pros than not will still tell you in 2017 to ALWAYS turn off IS when you are using a tripod.

Answer 2

There is an ISO which is not necessarily 200 that is the native sensitivity of the silicon from which the sensor is made. That sensitivity depends on the sensor itself, so will vary between cameras, but it is almost always between ISO 100 and 200.

The camera amplifies the signal to get higher sensitivities. It scales down the signal to get lower ones. Amplification leads to more noise, scaling down leads to loss of gradation which I guess is what your photographer meant by bleeding.

Basically the silicon cannot be changed, it's a physical substance that releases electrons when light lands on it. The amount of electrons determines how illuminated that pixel is but if you must simulate a lower sensitivity, all you can do is divide the number of electrons by some factor.

A simplistic example could be: Imagine a camera with ISO 200 native sensitivity. Each photosite can hold a certain amount of electrons which is read using a 12-bit read-out. That means it can output any value from 0 to 4095. To simulate ISO 100, you just read the photosite and divide by two. This gives you numbers of 0-2047, so there is 1-bit loss of nuances.

The process of scaling down the signal also reduces noise which is why cameras often have a Low ISO. On an Olympus mirrorless for example, it is clearly labelled. When you select ISO 100, it says Low 100 Expansion. This also means that there is sometimes a valid reason to use ISO 100 but usually staying at the native sensitivity is best. As a matter, again on an Olympus, selecting the ISO 200 says ISO 200 Recommended.

Answer 3

The sensitivity to light of photographic film is determined by preforming test exposures and measurements as specified by the International Organization of Standards (ISO). In recent times, the equivalent the sensitivity of the digital image chip closely parallels the sensitivity of film. However, test methods for the digital imaging chip continue to evolve. Currently digital there are three categories for ISO testing of the digital image chip. Native ISO – a sensitivity setting that does not require that the software apply increased voltage (amplification) to the imaging chip.

Amplified ISO – a sensitivity setting that that requires that an increased voltage and amplification be applied to the imaging chip. As the amplification is upped, some static creeps in. The higher the amplification, the higher will be the ratio of static to good signal. In the realm of digital, we call this static “noise”. Noise is perceived as a granularity (lack of uniformity) akin to grain that associated with photographic film images.

Simulated ISO – higher sensitivity settings achieved by raised voltage induced amplification and software algorithm that attempt to mitigate the ill effects of this action.

As to using an ISO setting below the Native ISO – a little degrading might be observed however more likely this will not be noticeable.

Allow me to add, significant improvements in the digital image chip allow higher and higher ISO setting with little downside unless the setting near its maximum.

Answer 4

He appears to be conflating ISO and exposure time.

There is a well-recognised problem with digital cameras and long exposure times. Running a CCD sensor takes a certain amount of current, and reading the voltages back for each pixel takes a bit more. Ohm's Law says that this dissipates power as heat, and of course you're not sat in a vat of liquid nitrogen so there's more heat around you. The problem then is that thermal noise is a fact of the universe, and the more heat you've got, the more noise you've got on your image. If you're measuring over a long time with relatively little light coming in, the noise can become a relatively significant part of the signal.

I used to do a lot of night photos with my Canon bridge camera back in the early 2000s, and this was very noticeable indeed. The good news is that camera manufacturers have greatly improved on their sensor designs over the last 20 years or so, and this is greatly reduced on modern cameras. It's still something to be aware of though, if you're planning on taking particularly long exposure images. If you're planning on doing an all-day long-exposure shot (which traditionally would have a heavy filter and slow ISO setting), you may find you get better results by taking multiple "normal" shots during the day and digitally summing them.