I am sure if one were to place the camera on a tripod and focus on a completely static detailed object there would be minimal percievable difference between the 100 and 400 iso images.

I am not saying that always choosing the lowest ISO is not a myth, it may well be, but this test doesn't bust it sorry.

Thanks,

- Evan

the results and methodology of the tests are different, but it provides another interesting angle by which to validate this myth

First, critically examine the text of the article. These test shots are made hand held and at relatively large magnification. The ISO 100 shot is at 1/250 second which is well within the range for problems from camera motion, especially for a small sensor camera at close-up range. Second, carefully observe the position of the leaf in the ISO 800 shot compared to the other three shots. The leaf in the ISO 800 shot has
been pushed up and to the right by an invisible force… called the wind. So we have the camera in motion and the subject waving in the wind and we’re supposed to judge sharpness.

In fact, although noisier, the sharpest photo is actually the ISO 1600
shot. Pay attention not to the leaf but to the bottom of the pot and what looks like a clump of peat moss. At ISO 1600 the 1/4000 sec shutter speed has finally stopped all motion. In fact, I’m not
completely convinced that we’re not also seeing some changes in depth of field, possibly from changes in aperture. The ISO 1600 shot at 1/4000 sec should have been taken at 1/3200 sec if the light had not changed. Why was it taken at 1/4000? What aperture was used and why?

Perhaps what the tester says is true. I don’t know. But you sure can’t make any judgments from this test.

Chuck Norcutt

First, critically examine the text of the article. These test shots are made hand held and at relatively large magnification. The ISO 100 shot is at 1/250 second which is well within the range for problems from camera motion, especially for a small sensor camera at close-up range. Second, carefully observe the position of the leaf in the ISO 800 shot compared to the other three shots. The leaf in the ISO 800 shot has
been pushed up and to the right by an invisible force… called the wind. So we have the camera in motion and the subject waving in the wind and we're supposed to judge sharpness.

In fact, although noisier, the sharpest photo is actually the ISO 1600
shot. Pay attention not to the leaf but to the bottom of the pot and what looks like a clump of peat moss. At ISO 1600 the 1/4000 sec shutter speed has finally stopped all motion. In fact, I'm not
completely convinced that we're not also seeing some changes in depth of field, possibly from changes in aperture. The ISO 1600 shot at 1/4000 sec should have been taken at 1/3200 sec if the light had not changed. Why was it taken at 1/4000? What aperture was used and why?

Perhaps what the tester says is true. I don't know. But you sure can't make any judgments from this test.

Chuck Norcutt

First, critically examine the text of the article. These test shots are made hand held and at relatively large magnification. The ISO 100 shot is at 1/250 second which is well within the range for problems from camera motion, especially for a small sensor camera at close-up range. Second, carefully observe the position of the leaf in the ISO 800 shot compared to the other three shots. The leaf in the ISO 800 shot has
been pushed up and to the right by an invisible force… called the wind. So we have the camera in motion and the subject waving in the wind and we’re supposed to judge sharpness.

In fact, although noisier, the sharpest photo is actually the ISO 1600
shot. Pay attention not to the leaf but to the bottom of the pot and what looks like a clump of peat moss. At ISO 1600 the 1/4000 sec shutter speed has finally stopped all motion. In fact, I’m not
completely convinced that we’re not also seeing some changes in depth of field, possibly from changes in aperture. The ISO 1600 shot at 1/4000 sec should have been taken at 1/3200 sec if the light had not changed. Why was it taken at 1/4000? What aperture was used and why?

Perhaps what the tester says is true. I don’t know. But you sure can’t make any judgments from this test.

Chuck Norcutt

Really great article, fun to read and I learned a lot.

He brought up the point that many beginner and/or inexperienced DSLR owners (myself included until just recently) will shoot at a low ISO at the expense of having to deal with motion blur in their photos due to the long exposure times made necessary by the low ISO. In nearly all cases, it’s much more acceptable to have a bit of noise in the image than to have motion blur. Noise, to some extent, can be reduced fairly effectively in post-processing, while unintended motion blur renders photos useless.