Nikon D7000 has ISO range from 100 to 6400 (expandable to 25,600)

Kyoshinikon I agree with you about the lacking of a true ISO 100 on Nikon. I was disappointed that my Leica M9 has only a true ISO 160 with a pull of 80 as well. I used to love shooting ISO 100 film on my F100, Minolta and F4 cameras. Paperman, it seems Nikon is not the only company that maintains ISO 200 as its lowest setting with the exception of the D3X. Canon often produces similar models with ISO 200 as the lowest setting.

@kyoshinikon
Does smaller native ISO always mean better performance /less noise ? I'm not so sure .

I am under the impression the reason Nikon used ISO 200 as native in many models is because they managed to obtain the same minimum noise levels of ISO 100 , at ISO 200 . And because ISO 100 wouldn't have made a difference . ( assumption only )

And isn't ISO 100 the native ISO of D3x ?

Im still annoyed in the lack of slower native ISO's in their dslrs... ISO 50 needs to be in the midrange an all of the pro models not just the D3x

That only for the D90 /D5000/D300 sensor the new D7000 sensor improves DR right down to 100 ISO

enthdegree said:
Wow, that's interesting. So if I shoot at L 1.0 I'm really not getting anything I can't get from underexposing it and postprocessing?

iDunno's link shows that Lo-1 is ~1/2 a stop better than that.
Underexpose, period, and you've thrown away potential dynamic range. Under expose 1 stop and you've thrown away one stop. This is why dedicated nutjobs shoot uniWB, so that they can fully expose each and every shot.

The table iDunno linked to showed that one gets 8.3EV of dynamic range with default 200 ISO. Underexpose 1 stop and you have 7.3EV of dynamic range left. (Underexposing does not shift dynamic range, the low end is a hard cap.) Yet the chart iDunno links shows 7.6EV of DR at Lo-1. Therefore Lo-1 performs better than underexposing in this metric. Not quite as well as a ND filter and proper exposure, but closer than the dirty hack of underexposing.

Wow, that's interesting. So if I shoot at L 1.0 I'm really not getting anything I can't get from underexposing it and postprocessing?

iDunno said:
take a look at the "ISO Sensitivity and Dynamic Range" here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp

So on the D90 you gain nothing except for a free 1-stop ND.
Thanks for the link.

take a look at the "ISO Sensitivity and Dynamic Range" here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page22.asp

Usually you will gain a little range in the shadows and lose a bit in dynamic range making the highlights "clipped" a bit by as much a 1-2 stops depending on what ISO ie 100 or pulls. Also a lot varies depending on the sensor as well as full frame is much more forgiving I find.

For the pulled ISOs (L0.3, etc..), what the camera is actually doing is shooting at base ISO (for instance 200), underexposing by a certain amount (eg. 1 stop for L1.0), and then adjusting the image post capture by the same amount. This means that you get more light in the shadow and dark areas of your image, reducing noise there, but your highlights clip sooner.

Technically, it should not impact dynamic range, since the range you lose on the highlights should be the same as the benefit in shadows, but at low ISO, shadow noise is not a big problem (especially on the later bodies), so you actually don't benefit at all.

Other than the fact that the sensor is less sensitive to light, what are the disadvantages to shooting at 'boosted' ISO sensitivities such as those at 'L 0.3-1.0'